Appeal Details
| RSA Number | 148219914 RSA 2010 |
|---|---|
| Bench | Mumbai |
| Appeal Number | ITA 1482/MUM/2010 |
| Duration Of Justice | 1 year(s) 3 day(s) |
| Appellant | TUSHAR V. ULLENGAL, MUMBAI |
| Respondent | ACIT CIR 3, MUMBAI |
| Appeal Type | Income Tax Appeal |
| Pronouncement Date | 28-02-2011 |
| Appeal Filed By | Assessee |
| Order Result | Dismissed |
| Bench Allotted | E |
| Tribunal Order Date | 28-02-2011 |
| Assessment Year | 2005-2006 |
| Appeal Filed On | 24-02-2010 |
| Judgment Text |
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S V MEHROTRA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1482/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) TUSHAR V ULLENGAL 9 MISTRY COURT DINSHAW VACHHA ROAD MUMBAI-400020 PAN:AACPU2398B . APPELLANT VS THE ACIT CIR 3 MUMBAI. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHREE HEMANT LAL O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO JM BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE IS CHALLENGING THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER DATED 20.02.2009 PASSED U/S 263 OF THE IT ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED ON 24.02.2010 AND CAUSE L ISTED FOR THE ON 15.02.2011. THE NOTICE OF THIS HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EVIDENCED BY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT ON RECORD. ON 15.02.2011 NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED BEFORE US NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT IS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THIS FACTUAL POSITION WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTEREST ED IN PROSECUTING ITA NO. 1482/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) 2 THE APPEAL FILED BY HIM.. THEREFORE WE HAVE NO OTH ER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL BY FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL); AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TU KOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480 (MP). ACCORDINGLY WE TREAT THESE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED. 3. HOWEVER WE MAY MENTION THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSE E DESIRES TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL HE SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL BY APPROPRIATE PETITION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED ABOUT THE REASONS FOR DEFAULT THEN THIS ORDER SHALL BE RECALLED SO AS TO TREAT THIS APPEAL AS ADMITTED. 4. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DIS MISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 FEB 2 011 SD SD (S V MEHROTRA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M E MBER MUMBAI DATED 28TH FEB 2011 SRL:15211 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. DR CONCERNED BENCH BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI
|