E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI .. , !'# $ $ $ $ % &' , ( !'# !) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, J M !./ I.T.A. NO. 7221 /MUM/2010 ( (+ , $-, (+ , $-, (+ , $-, (+ , $-, / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S SANTOOR LEAFIN PRIVATE LTD., 1118, DALAMAL TOWER, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI. + + + + / VS. ASSTT. CIT RG. 4(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN,6 TH FLOOR, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 20. #. !./ PAN : AABCS0036L ( ./ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( 01./ / RESPONDENT ) ./ 2 3 ! / APPELLANT BY : NONE 01./ 2 3 ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.K. GARG !+$ 2 / // / DATE OF HEARING : 30-09-2013 45- 2 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-09-2013 '& / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. : .. , !'# THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 8, MUMBAI DATED 12-08-2010 2. IN THIS CASE, THE HEARING WAS INITIALLY FIXED ON 26-07-2012. HOWEVER, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SA ID DATE AND HEARING THEREFORE WAS ADJOURNED TO 20-12-2012. THE BENCH D ID NOT FUNCTION ON 20-12-2012 AND THE HEARING, THEREFORE, WAS ADJOURNE D TO 02-07-2013, NOTICE OF WHICH WAS DULY DISPLAYED ON THE NOTICE BOARD. ON 02-07-2013, AGAIN ITA 7221/M/10 2 NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE H EARING THEREFORE WAS ADJOURNED BY THE BENCH TO 30-09-2013 WITH A DIRECTI ON TO THE REGISTRY TO SEND NOTICE OF THE HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRES S GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO BY RPAD. ON 30-09-2013, NOBODY, HOWEVER, HAS APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HA S BEEN FILED DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING SEND TO THE AS SESSEE BY RPAD WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, PROOF OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US. IT APPEARS FROM THIS NON-COMPLIANT AND NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. 3. IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANR. (118 ITR 461) (AT PAGES 477/478) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFEC TIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/ TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT ARE TH E DECISIONS OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJ I RAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (M.P) AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M ULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF THE JUDICIAL PRONO UNCEMENTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, W E TREAT THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON -PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AND FOR RECALLING OF THI S ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. ITA 7221/M/10 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED. 6 7 (+ ,6 2 6 2 89 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-09-2013. . '& 2 45- :'+7 30-09-2013 5 2 SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUJLA) (P.M. JAGTAP ) ( !'# JUDICIAL MEMBER !'# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; :'+ DATED 30-09-2013 $.(+.!./ RK , SR. PS '& 2 0(%; <;- '& 2 0(%; <;- '& 2 0(%; <;- '& 2 0(%; <;-/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ./ / THE APPELLANT 2. 01./ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. = () / THE CIT(A)-8, MUMBAI 4. = / CIT 4, MUMBAI 5. ;$@ 0((+ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. A, B / GUARD FILE. '&+! '&+! '&+! '&+! / BY ORDER, !1; 0( //TRUE COPY// C C C C/ // /!8 !8 !8 !8 ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI