M. A Fazul Rahiman, Alappuzha V. ACIT, Kottayam

ITSSA 3/COCH/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9176 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2006
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JM AND SANJAY AROR A, AM I.T(SS)A . NO. 03/COCH/ 2006 BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 & FOR THE PERIOD UP TO 04-11-1999 M.A.FAZUL RAHIMAN, THAMEEM MANZIL, ZILLA COURT WARD, ALAPPUZHA. [PAN: ACMPA 8363J] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOTTAYAM (ASSESSEE-APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI A.K.THATAI, CIT(DR) O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHO RT) DATED 5.10.2005 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 04.11.1999, DISPOSING OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL PREFERRED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 158BC R.W.S.143(3) OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) DATED 29.11.2001 BY ACIT, CIRCLE-1, KO TTAYAM. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, AND NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ST ANDS RECEIVED. THE APPEAL STANDS FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL ON 13.1.2006. THE SAME IS, AS OB SERVED FROM THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES, BEING REGULARLY POSTED FOR HEARING SINCE 31/8/2009, GETTING ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH RI R.KRISHNAN, FCA. THE DATE POSTED FOR HEARING IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF HEARING ( 7.7.2010), I.E., 18.3.2010, STOOD FIXED AS THE LAST CHANCE, ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES APPLIC ATION FOR ADJOURNMENT DATED 7.1.2010, ON 8.1.2010. PREFERRING AN APPEAL DOES NOT ONLY MEA N FILING OF AN APPEAL FORM, BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. THE APPEAL IS AN OLD ONE, CLOGGING THE RECORDS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS EVEN OTHERWISE HARD PRESSED FOR DISPOSING OF PENDING CASES. IT IS THUS CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PR OSECUTING ITS APPEAL. THE ASSESSEES IT(SS)A. NO.03/COCH./2006 2 APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. RELIANCE STANDS PLACED FOR THE SAME ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED VS. CIT , 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) AND JUDGMENT BY THE HONBLE HIG H COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR (223 ITR 480) (M.P.). 3. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 14TH JULY, 2010 GJ COPY TO: 1. M.A.FAZUL RAHIMAN, THAMEEM MANZIL, ZILLA COURT W ARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, KOC HI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, KOTTAYAM. 5. D.R./I.T.A.T., COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR)