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)
Judgement
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
|
