Appeal Details
| RSA Number | 519219914 RSA 2011 |
|---|---|
| Assessee PAN | AAAFP2940G |
| Bench | Mumbai |
| Appeal Number | ITA 5192/MUM/2011 |
| Duration Of Justice | 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s) |
| Appellant | PANKAJ INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI |
| Respondent | ACIT 16(3), MUMBAI |
| Appeal Type | Income Tax Appeal |
| Pronouncement Date | 03-10-2013 |
| Appeal Filed By | Assessee |
| Order Result | Dismissed |
| Bench Allotted | C |
| Tribunal Order Date | 03-10-2013 |
| Date Of Final Hearing | 03-10-2013 |
| Next Hearing Date | 03-10-2013 |
| Assessment Year | 2005-2006 |
| Appeal Filed On | 07-07-2011 |
| Judgment Text |
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SRI H.L. KARWA PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.BILL AIYA AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 5192/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S PANKAJ INVESTMENTS 1005/B CHANDANBALA R.R. RHAKKAR MARG OFF RIDGE RD. WALKESHWAR MUMBAI-400006 / VS. ACIT RANGE-16(3) MUMBAI !' $ ./ PAN :AAAFP2940G ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENT ) '% ( ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE &''% ( ) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.C. TEJPAL ( *$ / DATE OF HEARING : 03/10/2013 + ( *$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/10/2013 -. / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/03/2010 OF CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED DISPUTES ON SEVERAL GROUNDS. HOWEVER NO ONE APPEARED TO REPRESENT THE CASE WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEAR ING TODAY IE 03/10/2013. THE APPLICATION DATED 08/07/2013 HAS BE EN FILED REQUESTING FOR ADJOURNMENT ON GENERAL GROUND WITHOUT THERE BEI NG ANY AUTHORIZED PERSON TO EXPLAIN THE MATTER. WE ALSO FIND THAT ON 22/05/2012 25/09/2012 26/12/2012 21/03/2013 AND 08/07/2013 A LSO NO ONE 2 ITA NO.5192/MUM/2011 PANKAJ INVESTMENTS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRIOR TO THA T ALSO ONLY ADJOURNMENT HAD BEEN SOUGHT. 2. IN THE CASE OF B.N.BHATTACHARGEE AND ANR. (118 ITR 461) (AT PAGES 477/478) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFEC TIVELY. IN CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL COURT/ TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSEC UTION AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIP OL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009. TO THE SIMIL AR EFFECT ARE THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR-223 ITR 480 (M.P.) AND THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 3. KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCE MENTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF T HE CASE WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. THE ASSESSEE IF SO ADVISED SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON -COMPLIANCE AND FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATI SFIED THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/10/2013 -. ( + $ /- 03/10/2013 ( 0 SD/- (H.L.KARWA) SD/- (N.K.BILLAIYA) HONBLE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /- /DATED : 3 RD OCTOBER 2013. SHEKHAR. P.S. 3 ITA NO.5192/MUM/2011 PANKAJ INVESTMENTS -. -. -. -. ( (( ( &*12 &*12 &*12 &*12 32 * 32 * 32 * 32 * / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 4 ( ) / THE CIT- MUMBAI. 4. 4 / CIT(A)- MUMBAI 5. 250 &* / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. 06 7 / GUARD FILE. -. -. -. -. / BY ORDER '2* &* //TRUE COPY// 8 88 8 / 9 9 9 9 : : : : (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI
|