""
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, MUMBAI
. , ,
BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM
./I.T.A. No. 3945/Mum/2012
( / Assessment Year: 2008-09)
Madhu Finance The Income Tax Officer
212, Tulsiani Chambers, / Ward 12(3)(4),
Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. M. K. Road, Mumbai
. / . /PAN/GIR No. AAOFM 2688 Q
( /Appellant) : ( / Respondent)
/ Appellant by : None
/Respondent by : Shri Surendra Kumar
/ : 10.10.2013
Date of Hearing
/
: 10.10.2013
Date of Pronouncement
/ O R D E R
Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:
This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner
of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, Mumbai (`CIT(A)' for short) dated 04.04.2012, partly
allowing the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax
Act, 1961 (`the Act' hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2008-09 vide order dated
15.11.2010.
2
ITA No. 3945/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)
Madhu Finance vs. ITO
2. None appeared for and on behalf of the assessee when its appeal was called out for
hearing. The case was posted for 07.10.2013 per a notice through registered post in view
of non appearance on the date of original fixation on 03/7/2013. It was explained to the
bearer of the adjournment application dated 07/10/13 (on record), who could not identify
himself as any responsible person, that the power of attorney being submitted along with
could not be accepted inasmuch as the same has not been accepted by the person in
whose favour it has been made, i.e., Shri Pravin Kumar Bafna of M/s. Jain & Bafna,
Chartered Accountants. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 10/10/2013 to enable
the assessee to rectify this defect or file a proper letter of authority inasmuch as the
Tribunal could move only on the basis of a representation either by the assessee itself or
its authorized representative, i.e., with valid power. However, the assessee has neither
filed any fresh power of attorney or even itself attended the proceedings on the date so
granted.
Under the circumstances, as it appears to us, the assessee is not serious or earnest
in prosecuting its appeal. As clarified by the hon'ble apex court in CIT v. B.N.
Bhattarcharya [1979] 118 ITR 461 (SC), preferring an appeal does not mean mere filing
of the appeal memo, but effectively pursuing it. We, therefore, following the decisions by
the hon'ble Madhya Pradesh high court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs.
CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 (MP) and by the hon'ble Bombay high court dated 17.09.2010
in the case of Chemipol vs. Union of India (in Central Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009), as
well as by the tribunal (Delhi Bench) in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd.,
reported at 38 ITD 320, dismisses the assessee's appeal as un-admitted for want of
prosecution.
3. In the result, the assessee appeal is dismissed in limine.
Order pronounced in the open court on October 10, 2013
Sd/- Sd/-
(D. MANMOHAN) (SANJAY ARORA)
/ VICE PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated : 10.10.2013
3
ITA No. 3945/Mum/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09)
Madhu Finance vs. ITO
. ../Roshani, Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. / The Respondent
3. () / The CIT(A)
4. / CIT - concerned
5. , , / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. / Guard File
/ BY ORDER,
/ (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
, / ITAT, Mumbai
|
