Rajan Kanhaiyalal Bhiwapurkar, Nagpur V. Income tax Officer Ward 4(1), Nagpur

ITA 144/NAG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3184 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR MILIND BHUSARI
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR E-BENCH, NAGPUR (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE AT MUMBAI) . . , . / , . . BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO. 144/NAG/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 RAJAN KANHAIYALAL BHIWAPURKAR, 120,FARMLAND, RAMDASPETH, NAGPUR-440 010. PAN: AFTPB 7448 D VS. I.T.O. WARD-4(1), NAGPUR-440 001. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : NONE ! / RESPONDENT BY : DR. MILIND BHUSARI ' ! #$% / DATE OF HEARING : 30-01-2013 &' ! #$% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-01-2013 () / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 13-04-2010 OF THE CIT-II, NAGPUR: I. THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION A ND THEREFORE INVALID. II. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN TAKING THE VALUE AT 44.29 LACS INSTEAD OF 43 LACS. III. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS. 8,40,000/- INSTEAD OF 20,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASS ESSEE AS ON 01-04-1981. IV. IN ANY CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE SUBMISSION T HIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE ONLY ONE VIEW IS POSSIBLE THEREFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN INVOKING SEC. 263. V. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE TAKEN AT THE TIME OF H EARING WITH THE PERMISSION OF TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 144/NAG/2012 RAJAN KANHAIYALAL BHIWAPURKAR 2 2. ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) OF THE CIT-II, NAGPUR ON 27-04- 2012. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER WILL BE HEARD ON 04-01-2013. BUT, NO O NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE, NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN V IEW OF ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPE AL. HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECU TION. 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 AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 3. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL). IT(SS )A NO. 01/MUM/2008 SUNNY SOUNDS P. LTD., 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PROV ISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS D ISMISSED. * +, - *# / (01 ! ' +23 ! # 45. ORDER PRONOUNCED BY E-BENCH AT MUMBAI ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 +7' 0,# ' - 789 / 30 $ 2013 ' () &':# ; . SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. GUPTA ) ( / RAJENDRA ) (, / JUDICIAL MEMBER % (, / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +7' MUMBAI, ;( DATE: 30 TH JANUARY, 2013 TNMM COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR, ITAT, NAGPUR 6. GUARD FILE :# # //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT