HINDUJA VENTURES LTD., MUMBAI V. ADDL.CIT., RANGE-8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1534/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71281 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PITAMBAR DAS

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - H BENCH. . , !'# !'# !'# !'# !$%&' !$%&' !$%&' !$%&' , %! %! %! %! () () () () BEFORE S/SH.D.MANMOHAN,VICE-PRESIDENT & RAJENDRA,AC COUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.1534/MUM/2012 , ! ! ! ! * * * * / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 HINDUJA VENTURES LTD. 49/50, IN CENTRE, MIDC, 12 TH ROAD, MAROL, ANDHERI (E) MUMBAI- 400093 VS. ADDL CIT. RANGE-8(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 PAN:AAACH2058N ( !+, / APPELLANT) ( -.+, / RESPONDENT) !+, !+, !+, !+, / / / / % %% % / APPELLANT BY : NONE -.+, 0 / % / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PITAMBAR DAS ! !! ! 0 00 0 1! 1! 1! 1! / DATE OF HEARING : 26-09-2013 2* ! 0 1! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26-09-2013 , 1961 0 00 0 !! !! !! !! 254(1) % %% % &131 &131 &131 &131 (%4 (%4 (%4 (%4 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM ASSESSEE HAS FILED THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16-11-2011 OF THE CIT(A)-19, MUMBAI . 2. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER WOULD BE HEARD ON 26-09-2013.DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE US,NOR WAS ANY APPLICATION F OR ADJOURNING THE CASE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE.IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTE RESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL.HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON- PRO SECUTION.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. 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) AND FURTHER THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 17.09.2010 IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009.IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PROVISION OF RULE 1 9 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 2 ITA NO.1534/MUM/2012 HINDUJA VENTURES LTD . 6 !)7 !61 9!! (!: 0 3 !$; 0 $!1 < . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 26 H SEPTEMBER, 2013. (%4 0 2* ! % &!! = 1 1 1 1, ,, , 26 , ,, , 2013 0 3. SD/- SD/- ( . / D. MANMOHAN ) ( !$%&' !$%&' !$%&' !$%&' / RAJENDRA) !'# !'# !'# !'# / VICE-PRESIDENT %! %! %! %! () () () () /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, ?(! /DATE: 26.09 .2013 SK (%4 (%4 (%4 (%4 0 00 0 -1@ -1@ -1@ -1@ A%@*1 A%@*1 A%@*1 A%@*1 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / !+, 2. RESPONDENT / -.+, 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ B C , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / B C 5. DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / @D!3 -1 . .. . , . . &!! . 6. GUARD FILE/ 3! E! .!@1 -1 //TRUE COPY// (%4!! / BY ORDER, / ! $! DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI