|
Court : INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Brief : : Having regard to the facts stated above and keeping in view of the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as were considered by the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Ltd. reported in 38 ITR 320 (Del) and by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holder vs. CWT as reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP), we treat this appeal of the assessee as unadmitted and dismiss the same for nonprosecution. 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 satisfied, then this order may be recalled.
Citation : Smt. Sushiladevi O. Parasrampuria, 10th floor, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAGPP3365H Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-12(3)(2), Mumbai. Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri None Respondent by: Shri V.V. Shastri Date of hearing: 07-05-2012 Date of pronouncement: 07-05-2012
Judgment :
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) & SHRI VIVEK VARMA (JM)
I.T.A. No.3072/Mum/2011
(A.Y. 1997-98)
Smt. Sushiladevi O.
Parasrampuria,
10th floor, Regent Chambers,
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.
PAN: AAGPP3365H
Vs.
Income-tax Officer,
Ward-12(3)(2), Mumbai.
Appellant Respondent
Appellant by: Shri None
Respondent by: Shri V.V. Shastri
Date of hearing: 07-05-2012
Date of pronouncement: 07-05-2012
O R D E R
PER R.S. SYAL, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16-12-2010 of CIT(A)-23, Mumbai, in relation to assessment year 1997-98.
2. In this case, hearing was initially fixed before the Tribunal on 14-02-20-12. However, none was present on that day when the appeal was called out for hearing. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 07-05-2012. However, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing fixed on the said date also nor any application seeking adjournment has been moved. It appears that the assessee is not seriously interested in prosecuting her appeal filed before the Tribunal.
3. Having regard to the facts stated above and keeping in view of the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as were considered by the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Ltd. reported in 38 ITR 320 (Del) and by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holder vs. CWT as reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP), we treat this appeal of the assessee as unadmitted and dismiss the same for nonprosecution. 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 satisfied, then this order may be recalled.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on the 07th day of May, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(VIVEK VARMA) (R.S. SYAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai: 07th May, 2012.
NG:
Copy to :
1. Assessee.
2. Department.
3 CIT (A)-23, Mumbai.
4 CIT-XII,Mumbai.
5. DR,”E” Bench, Mumbai.
6. Master file.
(TRUE COPY)
BY ORDER,
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
|
|
Details
|
Date
|
Initials
|
Designation
|
|
1
|
Draft dictated on
|
07-05- 2012
|
|
Sr.PS/
|
|
2
|
Draft Placed before author
|
07-05- 2012
|
|
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/
|
|
6
|
Kept for pronouncement on
|
|
|
Sr.PS/
|
|
7
|
File sent to the Bench Clerk
|
|
|
Sr.PS/
|
|
8
|
Date on which the file goes to the
Head clerk
|
|
|
|
|
9
|
Date on which file goes to the AR
|
|
|
|
|
10
|
Date of dispatch of order
|
|
|
|
|
