FERJAN J ENGINEER, MUMBAI V. ITO WD II(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 9111/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8906 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI F BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. : 9111/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 FERJAN J ENGINEER BUENA VISTA, 1 ST FLOOR, POCHANWALA ROAD, NEW WORLI, MUMBAI : 400025 PAN NO. AAAPE0825H VS. ITO WD 11(2)(3) AAYKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI : 400020. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY MR. RAJARSHI DWIVEDY DT.OF HEARING 10.09.2012 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.09.2012 ORDER PER B.RAMAKOTAIAH, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2010 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2 AT THE TIME OF HEARING FIXED IN THIS CASE TODAY I.E. 10 TH SEPT 2012, NOBODY HAS PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO TICE FOR THE HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE AP PEAL MEMO. THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT WAS PLACED ON RECORD. THIS INDICATES THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL FILED BY HIM. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & A NR. 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL ITA NO. : 9111/MUM/2010 FERJAN J ENGINEER 2 DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALS O PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE TH E APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSEC UTION AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNI ON OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD., (38 ITD 320) AND MA DHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480), WE DISMISS THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3 HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROPER APPLICATI ON CAN SATISFY THE TRIBUNAL FOR SUCH NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ITS DISCRETION RECALL THIS ORDER. 4 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI DATED: 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2012 RASIKA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, MUMBAI 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH F MUMBA I //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI