Absence of prosecution may without reasonable cause deserve the appeal to be dismissed

Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
Assessee was informed that matter will be heard on 17.09.2012. But, no one appeared on behalf of assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence this appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution. In this regard, we are supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another, reported in 118 ITR 460 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it”.

Citation :
M/s. Manraj Leasing Pvt. Ltd. 507, Anant Deep Chambers, 273/277, Narsi Natha Street,Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400 009 PAN NO: AAACN 1733 A (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer – 6(3)(3),Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

MUMBAI BENCH ‘B’ BENCH

BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND

SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6704/Mum/2010

Assessment Year: 2006 -07

M/s. Manraj Leasing Pvt. Ltd.

507, Anant Deep Chambers,

273/277, Narsi Natha Street,

Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400 009

PAN NO: AAACN 1733 A

(Appellant)

Vs.

Income Tax Officer – 6(3)(3),

Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,

Mumbai-400 020

(Respondent)

Appellant by: None

Respondent by: Shri Baban Patil

Date of hearing: 17.09.2012

Date of pronouncement: 17.09.2012

ORDER

Per Rajendra,AM:

The assessee has filed this appeal against the Order of the CIT(A) dt. 25-03-2010 on the following Grounds: Grounds of Appeal:

“1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 12 (“CIT (A)”) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the disallowance of Rs.2,94,000 made by the Assessing Officer being payment made by the assessee for corporate membership.

2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the payment of Rs.2,94,000 made by the assessee was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee.

3. The CIT(A) ought to have held that the Assessing Officer has wrongly disallowed the said amount of Rs.2,94,000 as the Assessing Officer has not given any cogent reason for the said disallowance.”

Ltd.

2. Assessee was informed that matter will be heard on 17.09.2012. But, no one appeared on behalf of assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence this appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution. In this regard, we are supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another, reported in 118 ITR 460 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that:

“The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it”.

3. In this regard we are also supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). IT(SS)A No. 01/Mum/2008 Sunny Sounds P. Ltd.,

4. In view of the above, and also considering the provision of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal rules, 1963, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.

Pronounced in the open court on 17th September, 2012

Sd/- Sd/-

(D. MANMOHAN) (RAJENDRA)

Vice President Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated: 17th September, 2012

Copy to:

1. The appellant

2. The respondent

3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),, Mumbai

4. Commissioner of Income Tax, , Mumbai