SWASTI VINAYAKA SYNTHETICS LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CIR 7(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8823/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 882319914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI .. , !'# $ $ $ $ ! %, & !'# !' BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, J M !./ I.T.A. NO. 8823/MUM/2010 ( &) % $*% &) % $*% &) % $*% &) % $*% / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S SWASTI VINAYAKA SYNTHETICS LIMITED, 306, JOGANI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, J.R. BORICHA MARG, OPP. KASTURBA HOSPITAL, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI 400 011. ) ) ) ) / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 7(2), MUMBAI. #+ !./ PAN : AAAC1260G ( +, / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( -.+, / RESPONDENT ) +, / 0 ! / APPELLANT BY : NONE -.+, / 0 ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAVED AKHTAR !)$ / / // / DATE OF HEARING : 07-08-2013 12* / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-08-2013 '3 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) -13, MUMBAI DATED 22-7-2010. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE HEARING WAS INITIALLY FIXED BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 06-02-2013. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID ITA 8823/MUM/2010 2 DATE. THE HEARING FIXED ON 6-2-13, THEREFORE, WAS A DJOURNED TO 07-08-2013 AND NOTICE OF THE SAME WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO BY RPAD WELL IN ADVANCE. ON 7-8-2013, N EITHER ANYBODY HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF H EARING NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING SEND TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD HAS BEEN DULY SERVED, PROOF OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS FROM THIS CON-COMP LIANCE AND NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY I NTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. 3. IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANR. (118 ITR 461) (AT PAGES 477/478) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFEC TIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/ TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT ARE TH E DECISIONS OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJ I RAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (M.P) AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M ULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF THE JUDICIAL PRONO UNCEMENTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, W E TREAT THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON -PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AND FOR RECALLING OF THI S ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. ITA 8823/MUM/2010 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DIS MISSED. 4 5 &) %4 / 4 / 67 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07-08-2013. . '3 / 12* 8')5 07-08-2013 2 / SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (P.M. JAGTAP ) & !'# JUDICIAL MEMBER !'# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 8') DATED 07-08-2013 $.&).!./ RK , SR. PS '3 / -&9: ;:* '3 / -&9: ;:* '3 / -&9: ;:* '3 / -&9: ;:*/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.+, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. < () / THE CIT(A)- 13, MUMBAI 4. < / CIT 7 MUMBAI 5. :$? -&&) , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. @% A / GUARD FILE. '3)! '3)! '3)! '3)! / BY ORDER, !.: -& //TRUE COPY// B B B B/ // /!6 !6 !6 !6 ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI