ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Assessee can recall the order if prevented by sufficient cause for non appearance

LinkedIn


Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
This appeal was fixed for hearing on 5.9.2012 and the same was informed to the assessee at the address as mentioned by the assessee against Item No. 10 of Form 36. However, on the date of hearing when this appeal was called upon for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessed and there is also no application or request for adjournment. It, therefore, appears to us that the assessee is not serious about pursing this appeal. Hence following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), as also the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP), and further the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 17.09.2010 in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009, we dismiss this appeal as unadmitted for want of prosecution by the assessee.

Citation :
Shri Nitin Dattaram Samant, Prop. M/s. Samarth Erectors & Developers, 34/665, Nilgiri CHSL,Samta Nagar, Kandivali (E), Mumbai – 400 101. PAN: AAGPS5876C (Appellant) Vs. ACIT-25(3),Mumbai – 400 020. (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH ‘B’, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND

SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

I.T.A. NO.7655/M/2010

ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-2008

Shri Nitin Dattaram Samant,

Prop. M/s. Samarth Erectors &

Developers, 34/665, Nilgiri CHSL,

Samta Nagar, Kandivali (E),

Mumbai – 400 101.

PAN: AAGPS5876C

(Appellant)

Vs.

ACIT-25(3),

Mumbai – 400 020.

 (Respondent)

Appellant by: None

Respondent by: Shri Mohit Jain

Date of Hearing: 05.09.2012

Date of order: 05.09.2012

O R D E R

Per D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

This appeal has been filed by the assessee on 08.11.2010 against the order of the learned CIT(A)-35, Mumbai dated 08.10.2010 in relation to Assessment Year 2007-2008.

2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 5.9.2012 and the same was informed to the assessee at the address as mentioned by the assessee against Item No. 10 of Form 36. However, on the date of hearing when this appeal was called upon for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessed and there is also no application or request for adjournment. It, therefore, appears to us that the assessee is not serious about pursing this appeal. Hence following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), as also the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP), and further the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court dated 17.09.2010 in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009, we dismiss this appeal as unadmitted for want of prosecution by the assessee.

3. The assessee shall, however, be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling of this order, if prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing.

4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 5th day of September, 2012.

                                                        Sd/-                                Sd/-

                                         (D. MANMOHAN)   (D. KARUNAKARA RAO)

                                            VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Date : 05.09.2012

At: Mumbai

Okk

Copy to :

1. Shri Nitin Dattaram Samant, Mumbai.

2. ACIT-25(3), Mumbai.

3. The CIT (A), Concerned.

4. The CIT concerned.

5. The DR “B”, Bench, ITAT, Mumbai.

6. Guard File.

// True Copy//

By Order

Assistant Registrar

ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai

 

CS Bijoy
on 29 October 2012
Published in Income Tax
Views : 1656
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags