| RSA Number | 9424514 RSA 2011 |
|---|---|
| Bench | Pune |
| Appeal Number | ITA 94/PUN/2011 |
| Duration Of Justice | 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s) |
| Appellant | Dy.CIT Cir.-1, Nashik, Nashik |
| Respondent | Klasspack Private Ltd.,, Nashik |
| Appeal Type | Income Tax Appeal |
| Pronouncement Date | 29-03-2012 |
| Appeal Filed By | Department |
| Order Result | Dismissed |
| Bench Allotted | B |
| Tribunal Order Date | 29-03-2012 |
| Assessment Year | 2003-2004 |
| Appeal Filed On | 21-01-2011 |
| Judgment Text |
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMB ER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 83/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) KAVEE ENTERPRISES .. APPELLANT C/O VLCC HEALTH CARE LTD. M-14 COMMERCIAL COMPLEX GREATER KAILASH PART-II NEW DELHI VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER .. RESPONDEN T WD.2(2) PUNE APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MS NEE RA MALHOTRA DATE OF HEARING : 27.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.03.2012 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU A.M .: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-II PUNE DATED 02. 11.2005 WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. IN THIS CASE NOTICE WAS ISSUED FIXING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 27.03.2012. HOWEVER ON 27.03.2012 NEITHER ASSESSE E ATTENDED NOR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN THESE CIR CUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF B.N. BHTTACHARGEE & ANR. 118 ITR 461(SC) THAT A PPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUIN G IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS THE A PPEAL FOR NON- PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBA I IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO . 62 OF 2009. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURTS A ND ALSO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPL AN (INDIA) LTD. 38 ITD 320 AND THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT I N LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (MP) WE DISMISS THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CONCL USION OF THE HEARING ON 27.03.2012. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G.S. PA NNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 27 TH MARCH 2012 B COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) ITO WD. 2(2) PUNE 3) THE CIT (A)-II PUNE 4 THE CIT-II PUNE 5) DR B BENCH I.T.A.T. PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PS ITAT PUNE
|