ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

In the absence of appearance on the date of hearing and absence of application for adjournment may cause the appeal dismissed

LinkedIn


Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
When the matter was called on for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the acknowledgement-cum-notice, it is transpired that the assessee’s representative has noted the date of hearing, as is evident from his signature on the acknowledgement slip on 14.3.2011. It is, therefore, inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal which is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution following the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). and also the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol v UOI, dated 17th September, 2009 (BHC)

Citation :
Dyna Hitech Power Systems Ltd. ….. Appellant Dyna House, Plot No.A 57, MIDC, Sector-1,Andheri(E), Mumbai.PA NO.AAACD 5391 A Vs ACIT 8(3) .…. Respondent Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,Mumbai

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

“D” BENCH, MUMBAI.

Before Shri D.K.Agarwal, Judicial Member and

Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member

I.T.A No.2050/ Mum/2011

Assessment year: 2006-07

Dyna Hitech Power Systems Ltd. ….. Appellant

Dyna House, Plot No.A 57, MIDC, Sector-1,

Andheri(E), Mumbai.

PA NO.AAACD 5391 A

Vs

ACIT 8(3) .…. Respondent

Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road,

Mumbai.

Appearances:

None, for the appellant

C.G.K.Nair, for the respondent

Date of Hearing: 2.1.2012

Date of pronouncement: 2 -1-2012

O R D E R

Per Pramod Kumar:

1. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 7.12.2010 of the CIT(A)-16, Mumbai, in the matter of assessment year 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2006-07.

2. When the matter was called on for hearing, nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any application for adjournment filed. From the acknowledgement-cum-notice, it is transpired that the assessee’s representative has noted the date of hearing, as is evident from his signature on the acknowledgement slip on 14.3.2011. It is, therefore, inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal which is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution following the order of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). and also the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chemipol v UOI, dated 17th September, 2009 (BHC).

3. In the result, appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Pronounced in the open court on 2nd January, 2012

               Sd/-                                                                               Sd/-

       (D.K.Agarwal)                                                           (Pramod Kumar)

      Judicial Member                                                        Accountant Member

Mumbai, Dated 2nd January, 2012

Parida

Copy to:

1. The appellant

2. The respondent

3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),16, Mumbai

4. Commissioner of Income Tax, 8, Mumbai

5. Departmental Representative, Bench ‘D’ Mumbai

//TRUE COPY//

                                                                                            BY ORDER

ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI

 

Shivani
on 10 January 2012
Published in Income Tax
Views : 1870
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags