Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN
ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, A.M. The cross appeals-one by the assessee and the other by the Revenue- are directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai and arise out of the assessment M/s M.S. Shah Developers 2 & 7131/Mum/2012 completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’). Since common issues are involved, we are proceeding to dispose them off by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
We find that the case was fixed for hearing on 06.01.2016. The assessee requested for an adjournment. On the request of the assessee the case was adjourned to 26.07.2016. Again on 26.07.2016, the assessee requested for an adjournment. Accordingly, the case was adjourned to 10.11.2016. Neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared on 10.11.2016. The case was again fixed for hearing on 16.01.2017, 29.05.2017 and 21.09.2017. It is found that neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared on the above dates.
At the threshold, it is relevant to mention that none appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for. We find that proper notice of hearing has already been given to the assessee. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such we hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon following case laws: 1. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 2. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 3. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC) 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A), having gone through the relevant record has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee before him. We uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).