Suresh G. Patel, 10, Mithila Shopping Centre, V.M.Road, Juhu Scheme, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400049 PAN: AAAJPP 5811H Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Cen. Cir.22, Room No.465, Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road, Mumbai 400 020
October, 08th 2014
, , Û ,
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "E", MUMBAI
[^ .., Û Û], , ¢
Before Shri I.P.Bansal, JM and Shri Rajendra, AM
I TA NO.3950 /MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06)
I TA NO.3951 /MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2007-08)
I TA NO.3952 /MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09)
I TA NO.3953 /MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2010-11)
I TA NO.3954 /MUM/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10)
Suresh G. Patel, Asstt. Commissioner of Income
10, Mithila Shopping Centre, /
Tax, Cen. Cir.22, Room No.465,
V.M.Road, Juhu Scheme, Aaykar Bhavan, MK Road,
Vile Parle (W), Mumbai 400049 Mumbai 400 020
PAN: AAAJPP 5811H
( /Appellant) (×/Respondent)
/Appellant by : None
× /Respondent by : Ms. S. Padmaja
Date of Hearing : 15.09.2014 Date of Pronouncement :
/ O R D E R
PER I.P.BANSAL (JM) :
All these appeals are filed by the assessee. The appeal fees paid along with
appeal was short as follows:
S.No. ITA No. Appeal fee short by
1. 3950/Mum/13 Rs.7258/-
2. 3951/Mum/13 Rs.6941/-
3. 3952/Mum/13 Rs.8121/-
4. 3953/Mum/13 Rs.6161/-
5. 3954/Mum/13 Rs.8127/-
2. Accordingly, defect notice was issued to the assessee. In response to the
defect notice the assessee has filed five separate letters for each of the appeal which
are dated 3/9/2014. In the letter it is mentioned that in other cases Ld. CIT(A) has
granted relief to the other assessees, therefore, the assessee filed the present appeal.
However, considering the cost of the appeal fees and also the cost of counsel fees,
2 I TA N O . 3 9 5 0 - 3 9 5 4 / M U M / 2 0 1 3
the relief that would be expected to be allowed would be lower than the cost
referred as above. Therefore, the assessee sought withdrawal of appeals and it is
mentioned that the said withdrawal should not be treated as the acceptance of the
impugned order by the assessee. All these letters are placed on record.
3. We have considered this request of the assessee. These appeals are liable to
be dismissed on account of non-removal of defect of shortage in payment of appeal
fees. Therefore, we dismiss these appeals of the assessee for not making good the
default of shortage of appeal fees. In view of dismissal of these appeals on account
of defect, other request of the assessee made in the application cannot be accepted
as the appeal would be treated to be non-est being incompetent.
4. In view of above discussion, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed on
the default of non-payment of appropriate appeal fees. Accordingly, all these
appeals are dismissed.
5. In the result, all these appeals are dismissed in the manner aforesaid.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 15.09. 2014.
/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Û / JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai; Dated : 15.Sept. 2014.
/ Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. × / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT, Mumbai.
4. / CIT(A)-13, Mumbai
5. , , / DR,
6. [ / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
× //True Copy//
/ (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
, / ITAT, Mumbai