KIRIT CHANDULLAL MEHTA, MUMBAI v. ACIT 13(3), MUMBAI

ITSSA 78/MUM/2009 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 7819916 RSA 2009
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITSSA 78/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant KIRIT CHANDULLAL MEHTA, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT 13(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 28-05-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 13-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD AM AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO JM. I.T.(SS)A. NO.78/MUM/2009 BLOCK PERIOD : 1990-91 TO 1999-2000 SHRI KIRIT CHANDULLAL MEHTA FLAT NO. 51/52 5 TH FLOOR A-1 APARTENTS WALKESHWAR MUMBAI 400 006 PAN: VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX-13(3) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MOHD. USMAN O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 25 TH MAY 2009 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S)-XIII MUMBAI AND RELATES TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1990-91 TO 1999-2000. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 26.05.2010 AND THE NOTICE WAS SENT BY REGD. A/D AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN F ORM NO. 36 I.E. FORM OF APPEAL TO APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE ENVELOP CONTAINI NG THE NOTICE HAS HOWEVER BEEN RECEIVED BACK WITH THE POSTAL REMARK NOT KNOW N. NOBODY WAS THUS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEA RING I.E. 26.05.2010. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY OTHER ADDRESS IT I S NOT POSSIBLE TO SEND THE NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THEREFORE PRES UMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY BY APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480(MP) THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF MAY 2010. SD. SD. (V. DURGA RAO) (T. R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED THE 28 TH MAY 2010. IT(SS)A NO.78/M/09 KIRIT CHANDULLAL MEHTA 2 KN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT -13 MUMBAI 4. THE CIT(A)-XIII MUMBAI 5. THE DR G BENCH MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI IT(SS)A NO.78/M/09 KIRIT CHANDULLAL MEHTA 3 ORDER PRONCOUNCED ON . 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT AS WELL AS NO PETITION FOR ADJOURNMENT WA S FILED. WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT ASSESSEE-APPELLANT WAS SERVED NOTICE B Y REGISTERED POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE TWICE AND THE ACKNOWLEDG EMENT CARDS DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.07.2007 AND 16.11.2 007 RECEIVED BACK. IT IS THEREFORE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED BY IT. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (2 23 ITR 480)(MP) THAT IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF PAPER-BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) IS A LSO TO THE SAME EFFECT. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. THE ASSESSEE IF SO ADVISED SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THE TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE REASONABLE CAUSE BEHIND THE NON- APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND IN THAT CASE THE TRIBUNAL MAY IN ITS DISCRETION RECALL THIS ORDER AND THE APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED FOR RE-HEARING. 3. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.12.2 007. IT(SS)A NO.78/M/09 KIRIT CHANDULLAL MEHTA 4 2. FROM THE GROUNDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) WE FIND THAT THE LEVY PERTA INED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS. 1 02 744/- AND THE PENALTY LEVIED WAS RS. 22 248/-. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR F.NO. 279/MISC.142/2007-IT DATED 15 TH MAY 2008 THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE TAX EFFECT BEING LESS THAN RS. 2 LAKH S. VIDE PARA 4 OF THIS CIRCULAR IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN ASCERTA INING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF APPEALS IN THE CASE OF PENALTY ORDERS WOULD MEAN QUANTUM OF PENALTY DELETED OR REDUCED. 3. THEREFORE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS _______ DAY OF MAY 2009 . (G.C. GUPTA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED THE ______MAY 2009. KN COPY TO: 6. THE ASSESSEE 7. THE ITO-26(1)(2) MUMBAI. 8. THE CIT CITY-XXVI MUMBAI 9. THE CIT(A)-XXVIII MUMBAI 10. THE DR G BENCH MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 18.05.09 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 18.05.09 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS IT(SS)A NO.78/M/09 KIRIT CHANDULLAL MEHTA 5 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER IT(SS)A NO.78/M/09 KIRIT CHANDULLAL MEHTA 6