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
GST Live Certification Course (39th Batch) - April 2024 (Weekend Batch) (With Certificate)
"Live class on Python for Financial Analysis: Unlocking Efficiency in Accounting and Finance"