CA Loan Bajaj Finserv
CA Final Online Classes
CA Classes

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Non appearance of the appellant can leade the to appreciation of Rule 19 of Appeallate Tribunal Rules of 1963

LinkedIn


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)

 

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.

 

CS Bijoy
on 03 July 2012
Published in Income Tax
Views : 1505
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags