KADRI CONSULTANTS P LTD, MUMBAI v. ITO 11(2)4, MUMBAI

ITA 4182/MUM/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 418219914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACK1517B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 4182/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant KADRI CONSULTANTS P LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 11(2)4, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 14-05-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 07-07-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH A MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. 4182 /MUM/2009. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05. KADRI CONSULTANTS P. LTD. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER 4A SHIV SAGAR ESTATE VS. 11(2)4 DR. A.E. ROAD WORLI MUMBAI. MUMBAI 400 018. PAN AAACK1517B APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKRAM GAUR. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-XI MUMBAI DATED 26-03-20 09 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. CERTAI N LETTERS WERE FILED ON THE LETTER-HEAD OF R.N. BHANSALI & CO. C HARTERED ACCOUNTANTS. BUT NO PARTNER OR PROPRIETOR OF THAT C.A. FIRM HAS SIGNED THESE APPLICATIONS. AT THE PLACE WHERE THE PARTNER OR THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS SUPPOSED TO SIGN SOMEBODY HAS S CRIBBLED THE NAME OF THE C.A. FIRM. SUCH LETTERS WITHOUT PROPER VERIFIC ATION OR AUTHENTICATION CANNOT BE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF. SECTION 288 OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT LAYS DOWN THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT OF APPEARANCE OF AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE. 2 RULE 2(II) OF THE ITAT RULE 1963 DEFINES AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE. RULE 16 DEALS WITH AUTHORISING REPRESENTATIVE TO APPEAR. SIMILARLY RULE 17 DEALS WITH THE SAME ISSUE. 3. DESPITE SUCH ELABORATE PROVISIONS IN THE ACT AN D RULES THE COUNSELS IN THIS CASE CHOSE TO VIOLATE THE RULES T HAT TOO DESPITE REPEATED REQUESTS FROM THE BENCH. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD. REPO RTED IN 38 ITD 320 AND THE DECISION OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480 WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD WE ALSO TAKE SUPPORT FROM THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDI A & OTHERS CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009 ORDER DATED 1 7 TH SEPT. 2009 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT EVERY COURT OR TRIBUN AL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE PROCEEDING FOR NON P ROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WI SH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDING. APPLYING THIS PRINCIPLE WE DISMISS THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF MAY 2010. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. MUMBAI DATED : 14 TH MAY 2010. WAKODE 3 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR A-BENCH. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI.