Interklin Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

MA 194/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6290 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 27/5/2011 DRAFTED ON: MA NO.194/AHD/2009 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3740/AHD/2007 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 INTERKILN INDUSTRIES LTD. SANGHAVI CHAMBERS B/S.CANARA BANK NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD ( ORIGINAL APPELLANT ) VS. THE ACIT CIR-4 AHMEDBAD ( ORIGINAL RESPONDENT ) PAN/GIR NO. : AAACI 4563 R (APPLICANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : -NONE- RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.L.KUREEL, SR. D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :- THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION RECEIVED O N 10/06/2009, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO RE-CALL AN ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26/12/2007 THROUGH WHICH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOLLOWING A DECISION OF DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD. [38 ITD 320 (DEL.)]. IN THIS APPLICATION, IT WAS S TATED THAT THE APPELLANT IS A SICK INDUSTRIAL COMPANY AND INCURRING LOSSES. H OWEVER, IT WAS PRAYED TO RESTORE THE SAID ORDER AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 24 OF ITAT RULES, 1963. MA NO.19 4 /AHD/2009 2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3740/AHD/2007) INTERKILN INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 2 - 2. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT MR.P.L.K UREEL APPEARED AND FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPLICANT NO ONE APPEARED. THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING BUT REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. 3. FROM THE NOTINGS OF THE ORDER-SHEET, WE HAVE NOT ED THAT IN THE PAST ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THIS MATTER WAS POSTED FOR HEA RING BUT NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. SEVERAL DATES OF HEARING WERE 8/10/2010, 12/11/2010, 24/12/2010 AND 21/04/2011. THIS SHOWS THAT NEITHER AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE A PPELLANT WAS VIGILANT TO PURSUE ITS CASE NOR AFTER FILING THIS APPLICATION I T HAD APPEARED TO REPRESENT THIS MATTER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE NOW UNABLE TO KEEP THIS APPLICATION PENDING ANYMORE, HENCE, DISMI SS THE SAME FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 27/ 05 / 2011. SD/- SD/- ( D.C. AGRAWAL ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27 / 05 /2011 T.C. NAIR, SR.PS MA NO.19 4 /AHD/2009 2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3740/AHD/2007) INTERKILN INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 3 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION.. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 31.5.11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.5.11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER