SENTINEL FOODS P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI v. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2519/MUM/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 251919914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACCS1519B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2519/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant SENTINEL FOODS P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 15-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 30-06-2011
Next Hearing Date 30-06-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 31-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH F MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 2519/MUM/2010. ASSESS MENT YEAR : 2006-07. M/S SENTINEL FOODS P. LTD. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER A-470 TTC INDUSTRIAL AREA VS. 10(3)(4) MUMBAI. GHANSOLI MAHAPE NAVI MUMBAI 400 709. PAN AACCS 1519B APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPON DENT BY : SHRI T.T. JACOB. O R D E R. PER P.M. JAGTAP A.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-22 MUMBAI DATED 01-01-2010 WHEREBY HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS.1 LAKH IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271B. 2. IN THIS CASE HEARING WAS INITIALLY FIXED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 09-02-2011. NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO BY RPAD HOWEVER RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARK LEFT. INCIDENTALLY THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON 09-02-2011 AS WELL AS ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 19-04-2011. THE HEARI NG FIXED ON 19-04-2011 THEREFORE WAS ADJOURNED TO 30-06-2011 THE NOTICE OF WHICH WAS DULY GIVEN TO THE 2 ITA NO.2579/MUM/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. ASSESSEE WELL IN ADVANCE THROUGH NOTICE BOARD. HOWE VER NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 30-06-2011 NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED. IT APPE ARS FROM THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PR OSECUTING THIS APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS CONSI DERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) P. LTD. 38 ITD 3 20 (DEL.) AND BY HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJ IRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS U NADMITTED AND DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. 4. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO AS WELL A S THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE DELAY IN GETTING ITS ACCOUNT AUDITED U/S 4 4AB WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BY ADVANCING ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. IN OUR OPINION IT IS THUS A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S 271B FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 271B ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CASE TO SUCCEED ON MERIT ALSO IN THIS APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN) (P. M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 15 TH JULY 2011. WAKODE 3 ITA NO.2579/MUM/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR F-BENCH. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORD ER ASSTT. R EGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BEN CHES MUMBA I.