ANEKANT ESTATES P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO WD 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1282/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75188 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M L PERUMAL
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND N.K.BILLAIYA (AM ) . . , . . , ./I.T.A.NO.1282/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ANEKANT ESTATE S P . LIMITED, 412, THACKER TOWER, PLOT -86, SECTOR 17, VASHI NAVI MUMBAI. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 8(1)1, MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AABCA2728H ( ' / APPELLANT) .. ( ( ' / RESPONDENT) ' / APPELLANT BY : NONE ( ' * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.L.PERUMAL * - / DATE OF HEARING : 2.1.2014 * - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2.1.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 16.12.2011 ON FOLLOWING GROUND S : 1. THE LD CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,22,648/- TO THE TO TAL INCOME. 2. THE LD CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW AND F ACTS BY TREATING BUSINESS INCOME FROM RENTING OF FURNITURE AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTIES. 3. THE LD CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS BEING OFFERED AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE PAST SEVER AL ASSESSMENT YEARS AND HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS SUCH. 4. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY CONF IRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.4,80,985/- AGAINST I NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTIES /BUSINESS INCOME 2. LASTLY THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 7.8.2 013 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEE FOR 2.1.2014. 3. ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, NO ONE IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT APP EARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN T HIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE ITA NO.1282/MUM/2012 2 DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N.BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 460, WHEREIN, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PU RSUING IT . WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M ULTIPLAN INDIA (P)LTD., 38 ITD 320(DEL). 4. BEFORE WE PART WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WE MAY STATE THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL. 5. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2014 * 1 2 2 ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2014 * S D SD ( . . /N.K.BILLAIYA ) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. ( ' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. > ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. > / CIT 5. ? (A , - A , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) - A , /ITAT, MUMBAI