CANDID CREATIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI v. ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2892/MUM/2010 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 289219914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACC4384L
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 2892/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant CANDID CREATIONS P.LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT RG 8(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 28-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 28-07-2011
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 12-04-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.2892/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 CANDID CREATIONS P.LTD. .. APPELLANT 401-A NEPTUNE BUILDING PLOT NO.7 J.P. ROAD HIRANANDANI COMPLEX ANDHERI MUMBAI-58 PA NO.AAACC 4384LN VS ACIT RANGE 8(1) . RESPONDEN T AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI. APPEARANCES: NONE FOR THE APPELLANT ALEXANDER CHANDY FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING : 28-07-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28-07-2011 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CALLED I NTO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 11 TH FEBRUARY 2010 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02. I.T.A NO.2892/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 2 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING IN THIS CASE WAS SENT BY R PAD TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS FIXING ON 16.3.2011. AS THE BENCH D ID NOT FUNCTION ON 16.3.2011 THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 26.5.2011 AND THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED THROUGH NOTICE BOARD. AGAIN ALSO AS THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON 26.5.2011 THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.7.2011 AND THE PARTIES WERE INFORME D THROUGH NOTICE BOARD. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING ON 28.7.2011 NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT FI LED. FROM THE ABOVE WE INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. CONSEQUENTLY WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR WANT OF PRO SECUTION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CHEMIPOL V UOI ORDER DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 (BHC) AND ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE O F MULTIPLAN INDIA P. LTD. 32 ITD 320. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO MO VE THIS TRIBUNAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME BY WAY OF FRESH APPLICATION FOR REV IVING THE APPEAL. 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED FOR W ANT OF PROSECUTION. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JULY 2011 SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 28 TH JULY 2011 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 16 MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BENCH C MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI