C.V. RAMNARYANAN, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 23(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3354/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70668 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRA BHAT JHA

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.TA. NO.3354 /MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 C.V. RAMNARYANAN, 101 SUNRISE APARTMENT, BEHIND DEEP MANDIR CINEMA, OPP. L.B.S. MARG, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA(E) MUMBAI 400051 PAN: AAHPP6415P VS. ASST. C.I.T. - 23(2) C-10 PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, 2 ND FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA(E) MUMBAI-400051 ( ! / APPELLANT ) ( '# ! / RESPONDENT ) ! $ / APPELLANT BY : NONE '# ! % $ /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRABHAT JHA & % '( / DATE OF HEARING : 20 -08-2013 )*+ % '( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 -08-2013 , / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM THE FOLLOWING IS THE GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22- 03-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-33, MUMBAI: CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CONSULTANCY CHARGE S & PROFESSIONAL FEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 43,77,360/- AND IT IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOM E, WHEREAS AS PER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT CRAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY AND DELET E ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER WILL BE HEARD ON 20-08-2013. BUT, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN TH IS 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: I.TA. NO. 3354/MUM/2012 C.V. RAMNARYANAN 2 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 DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PRO VISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. - '. - '. - '. - '. &-' &-' &-' &-' / / / / 0 0 0 0 % %% % 1 11 1 - - - - % %% % ' ' ' ' 23 2323 23 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0 TH AUGUST, 2013. , % )*+ 4 5& 20 1' , 2013 * % 1 6 SD/- SD/- ( . . , / B.R. MITTAL ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, 5& DATE: 20 TH AUGUST, 2013 SK , , , , % %% % ''8 ''8 ''8 ''8 98+' 98+' 98+' 98+' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE #8' '' //TRUE COPY// ,& ,& ,& ,& / BY ORDER, : :: : / 2 2 2 2 DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI