TULAJI RAO ANGRE, V. ASST CIT RG 14(1),

MA 307/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0884 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PITAMBAR DAS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI E BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 307/MUM/2012 ( ARISING FROM ITA NO. 1654/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ) TULAJI RAO ANGRE, ANGER SHAHIB KA BADA, LALA KA BAZAR, KASHKAR GWALIOR (MP) VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, RANGE 14(1) MUMBAI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ACAPA2334G ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI PITAMBAR DAS DATE OF HEARING 27 TH SEPTEMBER 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 TH SEPTEMBER 2013 ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.2.2011 OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREBY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSEC UTION. 2 NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHE N THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. I T TRANSPIRES FROM THE RECORD THAT EVEN ON THE EARLIER OCCASIONS NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE SPECIFIC NOTICES WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER WE NOTE THAT SIMILAR MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION NO. 199/M/2011 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DISM ISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 9.12. 2011. IT APPEARS MA 307/M/2012 TULAJI RAO ANGRE 2 THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HABITUAL IN NOT ATTENDING THE HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND KEEP ON FILING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATIONS. THE EARLIER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIB UNAL AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE REPEATEDLY DID N OT ATTEND THE HEARING ON NUMBER OF OCCASIONS DESPITE THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICES. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE OBSERVATION OF THIS TRIBUN AL WHILE DISMISSING THE EARLIER MA VIDE ORDER DATED 9.12.2011 IN PARA 2 AND 3 AS UNDER: 2. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS FIRST LISTED ON 22.7.2011 FOR HEARING. THEREAFTER THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION I S BEING ADJOURNED ON SIX OCCASIONS AS NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. PARTICULARLY ON 22.7.2011, 5.8.2011, 11.8 .2011, 4.11.2011 AND 18.11.2011 NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT ON 11.8.2011 EVEN NO REQUEST OR APP LICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING ON 18.11.2011, THIS MA WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 2.12.2011 AS NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTI CE WAS ALSO ORDERED TO BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE EVEN ISSUED FOR THE EARLIER DATE OF HEARI NG, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR TO PURSUE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION. THE NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED FOR 2.12.2011 AND DESPITE THE REPEA TED NOTICE OF HEARING; THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND AND APPEAR WH ICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS WELL AS THE APPEAL, WHICH WAS EARLIE R DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT ADMITTED BY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT(223 ITR 480(MP) AND BY THE DELHI BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PV T LTD (38 ITD 320 (DEL). 3 WE FURTHER FIND THAT THEIR LORDSHIPS OF SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B N BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER, (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MERELY MEAN FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. WE ARE T HEREFORE CONSTRAINED TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED IN PURSUING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION/APPEAL. ACCO RDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. 3. THERE IS NO CHANGE OR IMPROVEMENT IN THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE A SERIOUS VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE TR IBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING THE EARLIER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. A CCORDINGLY, WE ARE MA 307/M/2012 TULAJI RAO ANGRE 3 OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEALS AS WELL APPLICATIONS AND KEEP ON FILING AND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ONE AFTER ANOTHER IN TOTAL DISREGARD TO THE PROCEDURE WHICH IS A GROSS MISUSE AND ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW . ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED WITH COST OF ` 5000/-. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED NOT TO ENTERTAIN F URTHER APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IF THE COST OF ` 5000/- IS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ORDER PR ORDER PR ORDER PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE OPEN COURT ONOUNCEMENT IN THE OPEN COURT ONOUNCEMENT IN THE OPEN COURT ONOUNCEMENT IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARIN G I.E. ON AT THE TIME OF HEARING I.E. ON AT THE TIME OF HEARING I.E. ON AT THE TIME OF HEARING I.E. ON 2 22 27 77 7 TH THTH TH S SS SEPTEMBER EPTEMBER EPTEMBER EPTEMBER 2013 2013 2013 2013 SD/- SD/- (P. M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIJAY PAL RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI: DATED: 27 TH SEPTEMBER 2013 SUBODH. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI