GLASSTECH INDUSTRIES (I) P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ITO 10(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1316/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6693 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 19-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SAHU
• Assessee Lawyers: HETAL PANCHAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G B ENCH, MUMBAI . , !'# $ $ $ $ , %& '()* , %+ ,- % # BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1316/MUM/2011 ( . . . . / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 M/S. GLASSTECH INDUSTRIES (I) PVT. LTD., F-223, INTEL INFOTECH PARK, 3 RD FLOOR, TOWER NO. 7, ABOVE VASHI RAILWAY STATION, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI-400 705 / VS. THE ITO, 10(3)(4), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 -/ %+ ./ 0 ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACG 34165H ( /1 / APPELLANT ) .. ( 23/1 / RESPONDENT ) /1 4 % / APPELLANT BY: SHRI HETAL PANCHAL 23/1 5 4 % / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.K. SAHU 5 6+ / DATE OF HEARING :19.06.2014 7. 5 6+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :19.06.2014 ,%8 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-22, MUMBAI DT.22.12.2010 PERTAINING TO A.Y.. 2005-06. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE PROPOSED TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL BY FILING THE FOLLOWING APPLICA TION: ITA NO. 1316/M/2011 2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, G BENCH, MUMBAI-400 020 DEAR SIR, RE: GLASSTECH INDUSTRIES (I) P LTD. A.Y. 2005-0 6 PAN AAACG 3416H APPEAL NO. 1316/MUMBAI/2011 .. WE REFER TO THE AFORESAID MATTER OF OUR ABOVE NAMED CLIENTS, FOR INCOME- TAX ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE HEARING FOR WHICH HAS BEEN FIXED ON THURSDAY 19 TH JUNE, 2014. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THA T THERE ARE CERTAIN FACTUAL DETAILS REQUIRED IN THE MATTER WHICH ARE NO T AVAILABLE AND HENCE, WE WOULD LIKE TO WITHDRAW THE ABOVEMENTIONED APPEAL . YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- FOR P.D. SARAF & CO. AUTHORISED SIGNATORY 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT OBJE CT ON THAT NOTE. WE PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH JUNE, 2014 . ,%8 5 . +% 9 :, ; 19.6.2014 5 < SD/- SD/- (D.MANMOHAN ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) !'# /VICE PRESIDENT %+ ,- / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; :, DATED 19.6.2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 1316/M/2011 3 ,%8 ,%8 ,%8 ,%8 5 55 5 26' 26' 26' 26' =%'.6 =%'.6 =%'.6 =%'.6 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. /1 / THE APPELLANT 2. 23/1 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. > ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. > / CIT 5. '?< 26 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. < @ / GUARD FILE. ,%8 ,%8 ,%8 ,%8 / BY ORDER, 3'6 26 //TRUE COPY// ! !! ! / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI