INTEGRON PROJECT SOLUTIONS P. LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S INTERGRON MANAGEMENT SERVICES P. LTD, MUMBAI

"I " IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "I" BENCH, MUMBAI .. , , BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JM ./I.T.A. No. 8201 /Mum/2011 ( / Assessment Year : 2008-09) M/s Integron Project / Dy. CIT ­ Ward 8(2), Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. F-704, Remi Bizcourt, M.K. Road, Veera Desai Road, Churchgate, Andheri (W), Mumbai - 20. Mumbai ­ 400 013. . / PAN : AABCI1966P ( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent) / Appellant by : None / Respondent by : Shri O.P. Singh / Date of Hearing : 23-09-2013 /Date of Pronouncement : 23-09-2013 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. : .. , This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) ­ 17, Mumbai dated 14-09-2011. 2. In this case, the hearing was initially fixed on 20-11-2012. But none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date of hearing. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 30-01-2013 and notice thereof was sent to the assessee by RPAD. The said notice sent to the assessee by RPAD at the 2 ITA 8201/M/11 address given in the appeal memo however came back un-delivered from the postal authorities with a remark "left". The Bench, incidentally, did not function on 30-01-2013 as well as on a couple of occasions thereafter when the case was fixed for hearing. Finally, the hearing was fixed on 23-09-2013. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 23-09-2013 nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed despite the fact that notice of the said hearing was duly displayed on notice board well in advance. It appears from this non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude of the assessee that it is not seriously interested in prosecuting its appeal. 3. In the case of B.N. Bhattachargee and Anr. (118 ITR 461) (at pages 477/478) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Court/Tribunal have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009. To the similar effect are the decisions of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar ­ 223 ITR 480 (M.P) and the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del). 4. Keeping in view the ratio of the judicial pronouncements as discussed above and having regard to the facts of the case, we treat this appeal of the assessee as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non-prosecution. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move the Tribunal explaining the reasons for non-compliance and for recalling of this order and if the Bench is so satisfied, then this order may be recalled. 3 ITA 8201/M/11 5. In the result, the assessee's appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23-09-2013. . 23-09-2013 Sd/- sd/- (VIVEK VARMA) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 23-09-2013 . ../ RK , Sr. PS / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent. 3. () / The CIT(A)- 17, Mumbai 4. / CIT ­ 8, Mumbai 5. , , / DR, ITAT, Mumbai "i" Bench 6. / Guard file. / BY ORDER, //True Copy// / (Dy./Asstt. / Registrar) , / ITAT, Mumbai ,