RASILA R. OSWAL, MUMBAI V. ITO 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 72/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3719 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JI TENDRA YADAV

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 72/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06) RASILA R OSWAL 82,83, SOLITAIRE, CENTRAL AVENUE, SANTRACRUS(W), MUMBAI-400054 PAN: AAAPOO751C . APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(2)(1), MUMBAI. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JITENDRA YAD AV. O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO,JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 28.10.2009 OF THE CIT(A)-XVII, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED ON 5/01/2010 AND FOR THE F IRST TIME THE APPEAL WAS PLACED ON BOARD FOR HEARING ON 119.1 0.2010. ON 19.08.2010, AT THE REQUEST OF THE LEARNED COUNSE L, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO THE 2.11.2010. AGAIN, THE NOTICE FOR HEARING ON 16.12.2010 WAS PLACED ON NOTICE BOARD. ON 16.12.2010, NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED BEFORE US NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT IS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION, W E ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTEREST ED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILED BY HER. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO ITA NO. 72/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06) 2 OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL BY F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUL TIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL); AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, REPORTED IN 223 I TR 480 (MP). ACCORDINGLY, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMI TTED. 3. HOWEVER, WE MAY MENTION THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSE E DESIRES TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL, SHE SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL BY APPROPRIATE PETITION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS FOR DEFAULT, THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED SO AS TO TREAT THIS AP PEAL AS ADMITTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. THIS IS SO PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF I.E. ON 16.12.2010. SD SD (R.S.SYAL) (VIJ AY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, ON THIS 16TH DAY OF DEC, 2010 SRL:21210 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI