SHOE FAIR, MUMBAI v. ITO 19(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 9099/MUM/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 909919914 RSA 2010
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 9099/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant SHOE FAIR, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 19(3)(4), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 07-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 07-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 07-10-2013
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 28-12-2010
Judgment Text
E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH MUMBAI .. !'# $ $ $ $ %$$ $&; ( !'# !) BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA J M !./ I.T.A. NO. 9099 /MUM/2010 ( (+ & $ & (+ & $ & (+ & $ & (+ & $ & / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S SHOE FAIR MAKKER & CO. SHOP NO. 9 SHAMJI MORARJI BLDG. CHAPSHI BHIMJI ROAD MAZGAON MUMBAI 400 010. + + + + / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(3)(4) PIRAMAL CHAMBER LALBAUG. MUMBAI -12. #- !./ PAN : AASFS 10761 ( -. / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( /0-. / RESPONDENT ) -. 1 2 ! / APPELLANT BY : NONE /0-. 1 2 ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ABANIKANT NAYAK !+$ 1 / // / DATE OF HEARING : 07-10-13 34 1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.10.13 '5 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP A.M. : .. !'# THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 30 MUMBAI DATED 16-11-2010. ITA 9099/M/10 2 2. IN THIS CASE THE HEARING WAS INITIALLY FIXED ON 08-04-2013. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS APPLICATION DATED 06-04-2013 SOUGHT ADJOUR NMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 7-10-2013 WHICH WAS DU LY TAKEN NOTE OF BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 07-10-2013 I.E. TODAY NOBODY HOWEVER HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPL ICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. IT APPEARS FROM THIS NO N-COMPLIANT AND NON- COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. 3. 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 CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL COURT/ TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS HELD BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. TO THE SIMILAR EFFECT ARE TH E DECISIONS OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJ I RAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (M.P) AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M ULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 4. KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF THE JUDICIAL PRONO UNCEMENTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE W E TREAT THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON -PROSECUTION. THE ASSESSEE IF SO ADVISED SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE AND FOR RECALLING OF THI S ORDER AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. ITA 9099/M/10 3 5. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED. 6 7 (+ &6 1 6 1 89 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07-10-2013. . '5 1 34 :'+7 07-10-2013 4 1 SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (P.M. JAGTAP ) ( !'# JUDICIAL MEMBER !'# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; :'+ DATED 07-10-2013. $.(+.!./ RK SR. PS '5 1 /(;% <% '5 1 /(;% <% '5 1 /(;% <% '5 1 /(;% <% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. -. / THE APPELLANT 2. /0-. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. = () / THE CIT(A)-30 MUMBAI 4. = / CIT CITY 19 MUMBAI 5. %$@ /((+ / DR ITAT MUMBAI E BENCH 6. A& B / GUARD FILE. '5+! '5+! '5+! '5+! / BY ORDER !0% /( //TRUE COPY// C C C C/ // /!8 !8 !8 !8 ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI