KALPESH K SHAH, MUMBAI v. ITO 25(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3960/MUM/2013 | 1995-1996
Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 396019914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AACPS4907Q
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 3960/MUM/2013
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant KALPESH K SHAH, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 25(2)(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 A
Tribunal Order Date 24-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 13-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 13-09-2016
First Hearing Date 13-09-2016
Assessment Year 1995-1996
Appeal Filed On 17-05-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 3960/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995 - 96 & ITA NO. 3961/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1996 - 97 KALPESH K. SHAH SHANTI VILLA NR. ST. LAWRENC E SCHOOL DEVIDAS LANE BORIVAL I (W) MUMBAI - 400103 VS. ITO - 25(2)(1) PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN BKC MUMBAI - 400051. PAN NO. AACPS4907Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MR. RAJESH KUMAR YADAV DR DATE OF HEARING : 09/11 /2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/11/2017 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN A.M. THE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 35 MUMBAI AND ARISE OUT OF PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISP OSE THEM OFF BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. WE FIND THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 01.09.2015 11.02 .2016 12.07.2017 AND 09.11.2017 . IT IS FOUND THAT NEITHER THE KALPESH K. SHAH ITA NO. 3960 & 3961/MUM/2013 2 ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED ON THE A BOVE DATES. 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 CONSID ERED 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 CASE 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. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAVING GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL S ARE 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. KALPESH K. SHAH ITA NO. 3960 & 3961/MUM/2013 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