SONAL BEN. SHAH, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 17 & 28, MUMBAI

ITA 8216/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3609 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS PARMINDER
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . , , ! ! ! ! '# $% '# $% '# $% '# $% , ,, , & & & & ' ' ' ' BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 8216/MUM./2011 ( &) * !+* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200809 ) MRS. SONALBEN S. SHAH 6, ABHISHEK, VALLABHBHAI ROAD VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI 400 056 .. ,- / APPELLANT ) V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE17 & 28, MUMBAI .... ./,- / RESPONDENT , . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER ABDPS4304B 1! 2 3 / ASSESSEE BY : NONE &) *4# 2 3 / REVENUE BY : MRS. PARMINDER )! 2 # / DATE OF HEARING 18.03.2013 $ 5+ 2 # / DATE OF ORDER 18.4.2013 $ $ $ $ / ORDER '# $% '# $% '# $% '# $% , ,, , & & & & 6 6 6 6 / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE CHA LLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30 TH AUGUST 2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)XXXIX, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANT UM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200809. MRS. SONALBEN S. SHAH 2 2. BEFORE US, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO APPLICATION SEE KING ADJOURNMENT EITHER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. 3. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN M/S. CHEMI POL V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS., IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 200 9, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2009, WHILE CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V/S S. CHENIAPPA MUDALIAR, AIR 1969 SC 1068, SUNDERLAL MANNALAL V/S NANDRAMDAS DWARKADAS, AIR 1958 MP 260, AND OTHER JUDGMENTS, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 6. WE CANNOT ALTOGETHER LOSE SIGHT OF THE RULE THAT EVERY COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS A PROC EEDING FOR NON- PROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITION / APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WISH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, UNL ESS THE STATUTE CLEARLY REQUIRES THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL TO HEAR THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING AND DECIDE IT ON MERITS, IT CAN DISMISS THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING FOR. THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M/S. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), HAS HELD THAT IN A SIMILAR CIRCU MSTANCES, THE APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 4. APPLYING THE AFORESAID PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION O F THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND HOLD THE SAM E AS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 5. 4 #7 &) *4# 2 41 2 1# 89 : 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. $ 2 + ; <)7 18 TH APRIL 2013 2 = : ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH APRIL 2013 SD/- . .. . B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- '# '# '# '# $% $% $% $% & & & & AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, <) <) <) <) DATED : 18 TH APRIL 2013 MRS. SONALBEN S. SHAH 3 $ 2 .&#'> ?>+# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) &) *4# / THE ASSESSEE; (2) 1! / THE REVENUE; (3) @ () / THE CIT(A); (4) @ / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) >!C= .&#&) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) =D* E / GUARD FILE. /># .&# / TRUE COPY $) / BY ORDER . 1. FG / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY !4H &)1 F! / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I / 8 1 / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI