AMARCHAND MANGALDAS AND SURESH . A.S. SHROFF & CO., MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 11(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8279/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3681 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURINDER JIT SINGH
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BE NCH, MUMBAI . , !' # # # # $% &, () $*+ ( $' BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, V. P. AND SHRI SANJAY AR ORA, A. M. $./ I.T.A. NO. 8279/MUM/2011 ( - #.- - #.- - #.- - #.- / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) AMARCHAND & MANGALDAS & SURESH A. SHROFF & CO. 3 RD FLOOR, LENTIN CHAMBERS, DALAL STREET, FORT, MUMBAI-400 001 / VS. CIT-11 4 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M. K. ROAD, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400 020 +/ () $ ./ %0 $ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAAFA 6542 P ( /1 / APPELLANT ) : ( 23/1 / RESPONDENT ) /1 4 $( / APPELLANT BY : NONE 23/1 5 4 $( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURINDER JIT SINGH $# 5 6) / // / DATE OF HEARING : 25.04.2013 7. 5 6) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.04.2013 *(8 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGITATING THE ORD ER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11, MUMBAI (CIT FOR SHORT) DATED 12.10 .2011, PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) IN RES PECT OF ITS ASSESSMENT U/S.115WJ OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2007-08 DATE D 24.12.2009. 2 ITA NO.8279/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) AMARCHAND MANGALDAS & SURESH A. SHROFF & CO. VS. CI T 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN ITS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, AND NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FR OM IT STANDS RECEIVED. THIS IS DESPITE PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING, AS EVIDENCED B Y ITS PROOF ON RECORD. EVEN ON AN EARLIER OCCASION, I.E., 21.11.2012, THERE WAS NEITH ER ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT NOR ANY REPRESENTATION FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, S O THAT A FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DIRECTED TO BE ISSUED BY RPAD BY THE BENCH. UNDER T HE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO INFER NON-EARNESTNESS & NON-SERIOUSN ESS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTARCHARYA (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), IT STANDS HELD THAT AN APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN M ERE FILING OF THE APPEAL MEMO BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. ACCORDINGLY, RELYING THERE ON, AS WELL AS FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP) AND BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 17.09.2010 IN THE CASE OF CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009, AS WELL AS BY THE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH) IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD ., REPORTED AT 38 ITD 320, WE DISMISS THE INSTANT A PPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AS UN-ADMITTED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE 9 6: -96 5 )9% 5 %6 ; ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH APRIL, 2013 *(8 5 7. )( <*: 25 TH APRIL, 2013 5 = SD/- SD/- ( D. MANMOHAN ) ( SANJAY ARORA ) !' / VICE PRESIDENT () $*+ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; <* DATED : 25.04.2013 #..$./ ROSHANI , SR. PS 3 ITA NO.8279/MUM/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) AMARCHAND MANGALDAS & SURESH A. SHROFF & CO. VS. CI T *(8 5 26> ?(>.6 *(8 5 26> ?(>.6 *(8 5 26> ?(>.6 *(8 5 26> ?(>.6/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /1 / THE APPELLANT 2. 23/1 / THE RESPONDENT . 3. @ ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. @ / CIT - CONCERNED 5. >#C= 26 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. =- D / GUARD FILE. *(8$ *(8$ *(8$ *(8$ / BY ORDER, / // /$ % $ % $ % $ % (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI