LEGS APPAREL LTD, MUMBAI v. ACIT CEN CIR 11, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.7308 TO 7311 /MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2005-06) M/S. LEGS APPAREL LTD. C-17 ANSA INDUSTRIES CHS LTD. SAKIVIHAR ROAD SAKINAKA ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI -400 072 ASSESSEE VS ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 11 OLD CGO BLDG. 8TH FLOOR M.K. ROAD CHURCHGATE MUMBAI 400 020 .... REVENUE PAN: AAACL 6912 F ASSESSEE BY: NONE REVENUE BY: SMT. MALTHI R. SRIDHARAN O R D E R THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGIN G THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-37 MUMBAI DATED 19.07.2010 FOR THE A.YS. 2002- 03 TO 2005-06. 2. IN ALL THESE APPEALS DEFECT MEMO WAS ISSUED ON 1 1.11.2010 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS IN TH E APPEAL MEMO BUT ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME. THESE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON TODAY I.E. 10.02.2011. THE LD . CIT D.R. FOR THE ITA NOS.7308 TO 7311 /MUM/2010 M/S. LEGS APPAREL LTD. 2 DEPARTMENT SMT. MALTHI R. SRIDHARAN WAS PRESENT AND NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD AND THE RECEIPT OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AND REC EIVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ON 24.1.2011 WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. 3. AS PER THE RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DULY INFORMED ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING. IN SPITE OF DU E SERVICE OF THE NOTICE ASSESSEE DID NOT REMAIN PRESENT NOR SHOWED ANY INTE REST TO FILE ANY APPLICATION FOR THE ADJOURNMENT. I AM THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THESE APP EALS. I THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480)( MP) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MUL TIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (38 ITD 320)(DEL) DISMISS THESE APPEALS AS NON-ADMI TTED. 4. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANO THER (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) THEIR LORDSHIPS OF SUPREME COURT AT P AGE 477-78 HAS HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MERELY MEAN FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. I AM THEREFORE CON STRAINED TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE SE APPEALS. 5. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES ALL APPEALS STAND DISMISS IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 1 0TH FEBRUARY 2011. ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATE: 10TH FEBRUARY 2011 ITA NOS.7308 TO 7311 /MUM/2010 M/S. LEGS APPAREL LTD. 3 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) 37 MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT CENTRAL -I MUMBAI. 5) THE D.R. SMC BENCH MUMBAI. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI *CHAVAN ITA NOS.7308 TO 7311 /MUM/2010 M/S. LEGS APPAREL LTD. 4 SR.N. EPISODE OF AN ORDER DATE INITIALS CONCERNED 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 10.02.2011 SR.PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10.02.2011 SR.PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER