JET PACK MACHINES (PROP BHANUPRATAP SINGH), MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 21(3), MUMBAI

ITA 943/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4207 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SHUKLA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI .. , !'# $ $ $ $ ! %, & !'# !' BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, J M !./ I.T.A. NO. 943/MUM/2011 ( &) % $*% &) % $*% &) % $*% &) % $*% / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S JET PACK MACHINES, V-I BUILDING, UNIT NO. 24, MEHRA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD, SAKINAKA, MUMBAI 400 072. ) ) ) ) / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 21(3), BANDRA, MUMBAI. #+ !./ PAN : AAWPS1497B ( +, / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( -.+, / RESPONDENT ) +, / 0 ! / APPELLANT BY : NONE -.+, / 0 ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K. SHUKLA !)$ / / // / DATE OF HEARING : 08-07-2013 12* / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-07-2013 '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) -32, MUMBAI DATED 13-12-2010. 2. THIS CASE WAS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 09-05-2013. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE ON THE SAID DATE. THE HEARING, THEREFORE, WAS ADJOURNED TO 08-0 7-2013, NOTICE OF WHICH ITA 943/MUM/2011 2 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD WELL IN ADVANCE. THE SAID NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE AP PEAL MEMO HAS COME BACK FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES UN-DELIVERED WITH THE REMARK LEFT. IT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EVEN BOTHERED TO INFORM T HE CHANGE OF ADDRESS, IF ANY, TO FACILITATE THE SERVICE OF NOTICE. THIS CON DUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT HE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PURSUING THI S APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 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 943/MUM/2011 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DIS MISSED. 4 5 &) %4 / 4 / 67 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08-07-2013. . '3 / 12* 8')5 08-07-2013 2 / SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (P.M. JAGTAP ) & !'# JUDICIAL MEMBER !'# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 8') DATED 08-07-2013 $.&).!./ RK , SR. PS '3 / -&9: ;:* '3 / -&9: ;:* '3 / -&9: ;:* '3 / -&9: ;:*/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +, / THE APPELLANT 2. -.+, / THE RESPONDENT. 3. < () / THE CIT(A)- 32, MUMBAI 4. < / CIT 21(3) MUMBAI 5. :$? -&&) , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI I 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