M/s. RAINBOW SILKS, MUMBAI V. ACIT - 14(1), MUMBAI

ITA 880/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2143 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T T JACOB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAG HAVAN (JM) ITA NO. 880/MUM/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR-1998-99 RAINBOW SILKS, SHOP NO. 7, 1 ST FLOOR, KHATTAR GALLI, 38/40, THAKURDWAR ROAD, MUMBAI-400 002 PAN-AAAFR1551R VS. THE ACIT-14(1), 202, 2 ND FLOOR, EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400 021 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T.T. JACOB O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 17.11.2006 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XIV, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 2. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN POSTED FOR HEARING ON 6.5.2 010. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS INFORMED THE PARTIES THROUGH NOTICE BOA RD. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INFORMED ANY OTHER ADDRESS SO AS TO ENABLE THE REGI STRY TO SERVE THE NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE P RESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEA L. THEREFORE APPLYING THE RATIO OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (IND IA) P. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL) AND THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480(MP), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED FOR WANT OF PROSE CUTION BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 880/M/07 2 3. THE ASSESSEE SHALL, HOWEVER, BE AT LIBERTY TO AP PROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER, IF PREVENTED BY SUFFIC IENT CAUSE FOR NON- APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF MAY, 2010 SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 14 TH MAY, 2010 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR D BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI ITA NO. 880/M/07 3 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 6.5.2010 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 6. 5 .2010 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: _________ ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: _________ ______ SR. PS/ PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: _________ ______ SR. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: _________ ______ 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: _________ ______