PRAGATEE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI v. DCIT 12(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1356/MUM/2017 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 135619914 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AAJFP8649M
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1356/MUM/2017
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant PRAGATEE ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT 12(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 24-11-2017
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 27-02-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 1356/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PRAGATEE ENTERPRISES 4 TH FLOOR 152 BAZAR GATE STREET FORT MUMBAI - 400001 VS. DCIT - 12(1) MUMBAI. PAN NO. AAJFP8649M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MR. M.C. OMI NINGSHEN DR DATE OF HEARING : 17 /10/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/11/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2011 - 12 . THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 28 MUMBAI AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). 2. WE FIND THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 22.08.2017. THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST BY FILING AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT. A CCORDINGLY THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 17.10.2017. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO INFORM ED ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING ON 17.10.2017 AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE SIGNATURE OF ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE BODY OF THE PRAGATEE ENTERPRISES ITA NO. 1356/MUM/2017 2 ABOVE APPLICATION. IN SPITE OF THAT NEITHER THE A SSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON 17.10.2017 . 3. AT THE THRESHOLD IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR. WE FIND THAT PROPER NOTICE OF HEARING HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. AS SUCH WE HOLD THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON - PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON FOLLOWING C ASE LAWS: 1 . ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 2 . NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 3 . CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER 118 ITR 461(SC) 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS FOUND THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAVING GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD HAS DISMISSE D THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/11/2017. SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR SINGH) (N.K. PRADHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 24/11/2017 RAHUL SHARMA SR. P.S. PRAGATEE ENTERPRISES ITA NO. 1356/MUM/2017 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE . BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT MUMBAI