RAKESHKUMAR S. PATWA, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 19(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8410/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3280 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS R M MADHAVI
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '# , ,, , $ $ $ $ % % % % BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 8410/MUM./2011 ( $' ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200607 ) MR. RAKESHKUMAR S. PATWA K.V. VADIVEI SALT WADI NEAR MUNICIPAL SCHOOL BEHIND SAGAR BAKERY DHARAVI CROSS ROAD MUMBAI 400 017 .. *+ / APPELLANT ' V/S ADD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG MUMBAI 400 012 .... ,-*+ / RESPONDENT * . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AHSPP4048A $' (/! 0 1 / ASSESSEE BY : NONE 2 0 1 / REVENUE BY : MRS. R.M. MADHAVI ' 0 ! / DATE OF HEARING 01.07.2013 ' 34) 0 ! / DATE OF ORDER 01.07.2013 ' ' ' ' / ORDER ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '# , ,, , $ $ $ $ 5 5 5 5 / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, CH ALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER 12 TH OCTOBER 2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)XXII, MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSME NT MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200607. MR. RAKESHKUMAR S. PATWA 2 2. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NEITHER THE A SSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES APPEARED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT EITHER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, WE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN P ROSECUTING ITS 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 CIT V/S M/S. MU LTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), HAS HELD THAT IN A S IMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, 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. / !6 $' (/! 0 /2 ' 2! 78 9 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS D ISMISSED. ' 0 34) : ;'6 1 ST JULY 2013 4 0 < 9 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST JULY 2013 SD/- . .. . . . . . R.S. SYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ! ! ! ! '# '# '# '# $ $ $ $ AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, ;' ;' ;' ;' DATED: 1 ST JULY 2013 MR. RAKESHKUMAR S. PATWA 3 ' 0 ,$! = >=)! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) $' (/! / THE ASSESSEE; (2) 2 / THE REVENUE; (3) ? () / THE CIT(A); (4) ? / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) =B< ,$!$' , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) <( C / GUARD FILE. -=! ,$! / TRUE COPY '' / BY ORDER , 2. DE / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY /F $'2 D / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY G / 7 2 / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI