SUMARAJ SEAFOODS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7692/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 769219914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PITAMBAR DAS

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI .. , !'# $ $ $ $ %$$ $&; ( !'# !) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, J M !./ I.T.A. NO. 7692 /MUM/2011 ( (+ & $,& (+ & $,& (+ & $,& (+ & $,& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S SUMARAJ SEAFOODS PVT. LTD., 262, 2 ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 20, CAPTAIN BUILDING, S.B. SINGH ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001. + + + + / VS. A.C.I.T. 2(3), MUMBAI. #- !./ PAN :AACCS 2654B ( -. / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( /0-. / RESPONDENT ) -. 1 2 ! / APPELLANT BY : NONE /0-. 1 2 ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PITAMBAR DAS !+$ 1 / // / DATE OF HEARING : 07-10-13 34, 1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.10.13 '5 / 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) 6, MUMBAI DATED 19-09-2011. ITA 7692/M/11 2 2. IN THIS CASE, THE HEARING WAS INITIALLY FIXED ON 22-10-12. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT OF THE SAID HEARING AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 08-04-2013. ON 08-04-2013, THE ASS ESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT BY AN APPLICATION DATED 02-04-13 AND AC CORDINGLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 7-10-13. ON 07-10-13 I.E. TODAY NO BODY, HOWEVER, HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICAT ION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT APPEARS FROM THIS NON-COMPLIANT AND NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY I NTERESTED 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 7692/M/11 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED. 6 7 (+ &6 1 6 1 89 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07-10-2013. . '5 1 34, :'[phone] SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (P.M. JAGTAP ) ( !'# JUDICIAL MEMBER !'# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; :'+ DATED 07-10-2013. $.(+.!./ RK , SR. PS '5 1 /(;% <%, '5 1 /(;% <%, '5 1 /(;% <%, '5 1 /(;% <%,/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. -. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. = () / THE CIT(A)-6, MUMBAI 4. = / CIT CITY 2, MUMBAI 5. %$@ /((+ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. A& B / GUARD FILE. '5+! '5+! '5+! '5+! / BY ORDER, !0% /( //TRUE COPY// C C C C/ // /!8 !8 !8 !8 ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI