GIRISH NIGUDKAR, MUMBAI V. ASST CIOT 21(2), MUMBAI

ITA 9236/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8741 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMARD EEP
• Keywords: Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 9236/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. GIRISH NIGUDKAR, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF 501, ARAMBAUG, VS. INCOME-TAX-19(1), 12 TH ROAD, KHAR, MUMBAI. MUMBAI. PAN AAAPN6365K APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESP ONDENT BY : SHRI AMAR DEEP. DATE OF HEARING : 27-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-9-2012. O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-30, MUMBAI DATED 28-10-2010. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO FIXING THE HEARING ON 27-0-2012 HAS COME BACK FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES UNDELIVERED WITH THE REMARK CLOSED. THE ASSESSEE THUS HAS NOT BOTHERED TO INFORM THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS, IF ANY, TO FACILITATE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE AND IT APPEARS THAT HE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2 ITA NO.9236/MUM/2010 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS CONSI DERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) P. LTD. 38 ITD 3 20 (DEL.) AND BY HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS U NADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO ADVISED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON COMPLIANCE AND FOR R ECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECAL LED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF SEPT. , 2012. SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 27 TH SEPT., 2012. COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, G-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORD ER ASSTT. REGI STRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMB AI. WAKODE