GST Course
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

After filling appeal it is the duty of the appellant to take initiative for smooth proceeding in the absence of proper step appeal can be dismissed

LinkedIn


Court :
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Brief :
The appeal was fixed for hearing today i.e. on 1st February, 2012. No one is present 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 non-prosecution.

Citation :
M/s. S.S. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 315, Parekh Market, 39, J.S.S. Road, Opera House, Mumbai PAN-AAICS 1655G (Appellant)Vs.The DCIT, Central Circle-37,Aayakar Bhavan,Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

MUMBAI BENCH ‘E’ MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND

SHRI T.R. SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

ITA No.2729/Mum/2011

Assessment Year-2007-08

M/s. S.S. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., 315, Parekh Market,

39, J.S.S. Road, Opera House, Mumbai

PAN-AAICS 1655G

                                                                     (Appellant)

Vs.

The DCIT, Central Circle-37,

Aayakar Bhavan,

Mumbai-400 020

(Respondent)

Appellant by:None

Respondent by: Shri P.C. Maurya

Date of Hearing:01.02.2012

Date of pronouncement:01.02.2012

O R D E R

PER B.R. MITTAL, JM:

 The assessee has filed this appeal for assessment year 2007-08 against order of Ld. CIT(A) dt. 20.1.2011 on following grounds:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs. 3,83,270/- made by Ld. AO u/s. 14A of the I.T. Act though it was submitted that there was no expenditure incurred which was disallowable u/s. 14A and rule 8D had no retrospective effect and same was not applicable to the year under assessment.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming that the sum of Rs. 13,07,762/- was not a short term capital gain but it was income from business.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not granting deduction and rebate u/s.88E in computing total income of Rs. 51,007/- as claimed in the return of income and he further erred in not granting deduction of Rs. 1,38,836/- being further deduction allowable u/s.88E in respect of Securities Transactions Tax paid in respect of profit on sale of shares which was offered under the head income from capital gain but assessed by the officer as income from business the Securities Transactions Tax paid is to be considered as deduction u/s. 88E of the I.T. Act in computing tax liability to that extent and rebate is allowable.”

2. The appeal was fixed for hearing today i.e. on 1st February, 2012. No one is present 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 non-prosecution. 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.”

4. In this regard we are also supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del).

5. 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.

6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Order pronounced in the Open Court at the time of hearing i.e. on 01.02.2012

                                          Sd/-                             Sd/-

                                  (T.R. SOOD)             (B.R. MITTAL)

                             Accountant Member       Judicial Member

Mumbai, Dated 1st February,2012

Rj

Copy to:

1. The Appellant

2. The Respondent

3. The CIT-concerned

4. The CIT(A)-concerned

5. The DR ‘E’ Bench

True Copy

                                                                                                                 By Order

Asstt. Registrar, I.T.A.T, Mumbai

 

CS Bijoy
on 09 February 2012
Published in Income Tax
Views : 1146
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags