, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - D BENCH. . , ! ! ! ! '#$% '#$% '#$% '#$% , # # # # &' &' &' &' BEFORE S/SH.D.MANMOHAN,VICE-PRESIDENT & RAJENDRA,AC COUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.7880/MUM/2011 , ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 RECON OIL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 5 CHUNAWALA ESTATE, KONDIVITA ROAD, JB NAGAR, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI- 400059 VS. ASST. CIT 8(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 2 ND FLOOR, CHURCHGATE. MUMBAI- 400021 PAN:AAACR7566F ( )* / APPELLANT) ( +,)* / RESPONDENT) )* )* )* )* - - - - # ## # / APPELLANT BY : NONE +,)* . - # / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARIGOVIND SINGH . .. . / / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 05-09-2013 0( . / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-09-2013 / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM ASSESSEE-COMPANY, HAD FILED AN APPEAL CHALLENG ING THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2011 OF THE CIT(A)-18, MUMBAI RAISING 4 (FOUR)GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A), ERRED IN NOT GIVING FULL RELIEF TO THE APPELLANT BY DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A), ERRED IN GRANTING PARTIAL RELIE F AND MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 11,021,276/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. NIL AS BOGUS PURCHASES. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN MAKING FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 1,10,227/- OVER AND ABOVE ADDITIONS MADE AS THE BOGUS PURCHASES AS ABOVE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, DELETE, AMEND O R ALTER ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES. ON 27 .05.2013, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE(AR) OF THE ASSESSEE,SH.IQBAL HINGORA,MADE A REQUEST FOR ADJOUR NMENT. HE ALSO FILED HIS LETTER OF AUTHORITY TO REPRESENT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07.ON HIS REQUEST, CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 05.09.2013. TODAY,AN APPLICATION WAS MOVED BY VIMAL PUNMIYA &CO .FOR ADJOURNING OF THE CASE. IN THE APPLICATION IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HIS OFFICE OF SH.PUNAMIYA WAS UNDER REPAIRS AND RENOVATION, THAT THE FILES OF MO ST OF THE CLIENTS WERE SHIFTED TO ANOTHER OFFICE FOR T HE TIME BEING, THAT THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T 2 ITA NO.7880/MUM/2011 RECON OIL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. AVAILABLE, THAT MATTER SHOULD BE ADJOURNED SO THAT PROPER REPRESENTATION CAN BE MADE. ON A QUERY BY TH E BENCH ABOUT THE POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF VIMA L PUNMIYA & CO.,HE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT HOLDING ANY AUTHORITY FROM THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE C IRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT VIMAL PUNMIYA & CO. CANNOT REPRESENT THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROPER LETTER OF THE AUTHORITY. AR ON RECORD SHRI IQBAL HINGORA WAS INFORMED ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING THAT WILL BE HEARD ON 05.09.2013. BUT TODAY NEITHER HE APPEARED BEFORE US , NOR HE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNING THE CASE.IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . B.N.BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 460(RELEVANT PAGES 477& 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORD SHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 4. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PRO VISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. . 0( # $ 4 FLRACJ FLRACJ FLRACJ FLRACJ 05.09.2013 . 5. SD/- SD/- ( . / D. MANMOHAN ) ( '#$% '#$% '#$% '#$% / RAJENDRA) / VICE-PRESIDENT # # # # &' &' &' &' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 7& /DATE: 05.09 .2013 SK . .. . +/8 +/8 +/8 +/8 9#8(/ 9#8(/ 9#8(/ 9#8(/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / )* 2. RESPONDENT / +,)* 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ : ; , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / : ; 5. DR D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / 8<5 +/ . , . . $ . 6. GUARD FILE/ 5 = 3 ITA NO.7880/MUM/2011 RECON OIL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ,8/ +/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / ' DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI