IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                          "D" Bench, Mumbai

                 Before Shri D. Manmohan, Vice President
                and Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member

                          ITA No. 1403/Mum/2011
                          (Assessment Year: 2000-01)

     M/s. Dharmik Exim P. Ltd.             D C I T - 9(1)
     106, Ruby Indl. Estate, Chincholi     Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road
                                       Vs.
     Bunder Road Extn., Off Link Rd.       Mumbai 400020
     Malad (W), Mumbai 400064
                              PAN - AAACD3656N
                Appellant                           Respondent

                    Appellant by:    None
                    Respondent by:   Shri Love Kumar

                    Date of Hearing:       07.07.2015
                    Date of Pronouncement: 15.07.2015

                                  ORDER

Per D. Manmohan, V.P.

      This appeal by the assessee-company is directed against the order
dated 14.01.2011 passed by the CIT(A)-19, Mumbai and it pertains to A.Y.
2000-01.

2.     Penalty levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act having been
confirmed by the CIT(A), assessee-company is in appeal before the Tribunal
contending, inter alia, that the Tax Authorities erred in rejecting the
evidences produced by the assessee and by drawing conclusions on
surmises and conjectures; Therefore penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) is not
in accordance with law.






3.     The case is adjourned from time to time but none appeared for the
assessee. Finally, on 19.03.2015 the case was adjourned with a direction to
the Registry to send a notice by RPAD. However, none appeared on behalf of
the assessee on 07.07.2015. It may be noticed that the earlier notices sent
to the assessee at the address given in Form No. 36 were returned with the
postal remarks "NOT CLAIMED". Assessee did not choose to furnish the
                                         2                  ITA No. 1403/Mum/2011
                                                           M/s. Dharmik Exim P. Ltd.

correct address. We, therefore, have no other alternative except to dispose of
the appeal exparte, qua the assessee.

4.        It may be noticed that in the instant case the Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals), 19, Mumbai was shown as respondent, both in the cause title
as well as in column 11 of Form No. 36, i.e. address to which notice may be
sent to the respondent. Though the same was pointed out to the assessee in
the form of sending a defect notice it was not rectified. As could be noticed
from Rule 13 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, in an appeal filed by an
assessee under sub-section (1) of section 253, the Assessing Officer
concerned has to be made respondent to the appeal whereas the appeal filed
by the assessee is contrary to rule 13 since the first Appellate Authority was
shown as respondent. Even on merits no material was placed to contradict
the findings of the learned CIT(A). Under these circumstances we are of the
view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed not only on merits but also on
the ground that it is defective.






Order pronounced in the open court on 15th July, 2015.

                    Sd/-                                    Sd/-
               (Sanjay Arora)                         (D. Manmohan)
            Accountant Member                          Vice President

Mumbai, Dated: 15th July, 2015

Copy to:

     1.   The   Appellant
     2.   The   Respondent
     3.   The   CIT(A) ­ 19, Mumbai
     4.   The   CIT­ 9, Mumbai City
     5.   The   DR, "D" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai

                                                        By Order

//True Copy//
                                                     Assistant Registrar
                                             ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai