OBSERVER (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 4(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2977/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 55794 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JI TENDRA YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: SHEELA CHITLANGIA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN (VICE-PRESIDENT) & SHRI R.S. SYAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A.NOS.2976, 2977 & 2978/MUM/2010 (A.YS. 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05)) M/S. OBSERVER (INDIA) LTD., COURT HOUSE, 4 TH FLOOR, LOKMANYA TILK MARG, DHOBI TALAO, MUMBAI-400 020. PAN: AAACO 0671 N. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICR, WARD-4(3)(3), MUMBAI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY MS. SHEELA CHITLANGIA. RESPONDENT BY SHRI J ITENDRA YADAV DATE OF HEARING 24 - 10 - 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 - 10 - 2011 O R D E R PER R.S. SYAL, AM : THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE OUT OF TH REE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 17-07-2009 IN RELATION TO A SSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05. SINCE THESE APPEALS ARE BASED ON IDENTIC AL FACTS AND COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND WE ARE, THEREFORE, PROCEEDING TO DISP OSE THEM OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS IS AGAINS T THE CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON PLANT & MACHINERY. ITA NOS.2976 TO 2978/M/10 OBSERVER (INDIA) LTD. 2 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED R ETURNS FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AT LOSS. THE AO, WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME, MADE DISALLOWANCE OF THE IMPUGNED DEPRECIATION ON PLANT & MACHINERY, AND EVEN AFTER SUCH DISALLOWANCE, THERE REMAINED TOTAL INCOME AT L OSS IN ALL THE YEARS. THERE WAS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH RESULTED INTO DISMISSAL OF THESE APPEA LS EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. A.R. HAS FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT EVEN AFTER TH E CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION, THERE IS A LOSS AND THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSINESS THEREAFTER. IN VIEW OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, IT BECOMES OBVIOUS THAT THESE APPEALS HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF HEAVY LOSSE S INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE OVER THE PERIOD. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2 011. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 28TH OCTOBER , 2011. NG: COPY TO : 1.ASSESSEE. 2.DEPARTMENT. 3 CIT(A)-XV,MUMBAI. 4 CIT-4,MUMBAI. 5.DR,C BENCH,MUMBAI. ITA NOS.2976 TO 2978/M/10 OBSERVER (INDIA) LTD. 3 6.MASTER FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA NOS.2976 TO 2978/M/10 OBSERVER (INDIA) LTD. 4 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGN ATION 1 . DRAFT DICTATED ON 24 - 1 0 - 2011 SR.PS/ 2 . DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 24 - 1 0 - 2011 SR.PS/ 3 . DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 . DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEM ENT ON SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/ 8 . DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 . DATE O N WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER *