|
Court : INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Brief : : After informing that matter will be heard on a particular date, no one appeared on behalf of assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence this appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for nonprosecution
Citation : Mehul Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd.,D-703, Samarpan Royal, W.E. Highway, Near Bhor Industries, Kandivli-East, Mumbai-400 101. PAN: AACCM 5815 C Vs. The Income Tax Officer 9(2)(3), Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent)
Judgment :
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES “B” MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 2064/Mum/2011
Assessment Year 2004-05
Mehul Weaving Mills Pvt.
Ltd.,D-703,
Samarpan Royal,
W.E. Highway,
Near Bhor Industries,
Kandivli-East,
Mumbai-400 101.
PAN: AACCM 5815 C
Vs.
The Income Tax Officer 9(2)(3),
Piramal Chamber,
Lalbaug,
Mumbai.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by: NONE
Revenue by: Shri P.C. Maurya
Date of hearing: 19-06-2012
Date of pronouncement: 19-06-2012
ORDER
PER RAJENDRA, AM
The assessee has filed this appeal against the Order of the CIT(A)- 20,Mumbai,dt. 29-11-2010 on the following Grounds:
Grounds of Appeal:
1, On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon. CIT-A20, Mumbai erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,65,000/- in respect of loan from Mr. Ganesh Toshniwàl by treating the same as ‘Unexplained Credits’ u/s 68 of the Act
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon. CIT-A20, Mumbai erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,05,059/- in respect of purchases from M/s Damodar Threads Ltd. by treating the same as ‘Unexplained Purchases’.
3 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Hon CIT-A20, Mumbai erred in confirming disallowance of Rs.1,25,000/-out of the Professional Fees paid to Mr. Rakesh Khanna.
4. The appellants crave leave to add, amend or withdraw the Grounds of Appeals.
2. On 04-04-2012, assessee was informed that matter will be heard on 19- 06-2012. But, no one appeared on behalf of assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. In view of above, it appears that assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Hence this appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for nonprosecution. In this regard, we are supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another, reported in 118 ITR 460 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that:
“The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it”.
3. In this regard we are also supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del).
4. In view of the above, and also considering the provision of Rule 19 of the Appellate Tribunal rules, 1963, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19th June, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(B.R. MITTAL) (RAJENDRA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai,
Date 19th June, 2012
TNMM
Copy to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. The concerned CIT (A)
4. The concerned CIT
5. DR “B” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File
(True copy)
By Order
Asst. Registrar,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai Benches, Mumbai.
|
