M/s. Suryavinayak Engineers, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(5), Baroda

ITA 3667/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2380 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAWAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH C CC C BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI N NN N. .. .S. SAINI S. SAINI S. SAINI S. SAINI, , , , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING :12-1-2011 DRAFTED ON:12 -1-11. ITA NO. 3667 /AHD/ 2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 M /S. SURYAVINAYAK ENGINEERS 81/4, G.I.D.C. NR. INDIAN ALUMINIMUM CO., MAKARPURA, BARODA. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(5), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NR. RACE COURSE CIRCLE, BARODA. PAN/GIR NO. : AAWFS 89188 H (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ROBIN RAWAL, D.R. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II,BARODA DATED 15-9-2008. 2. EARLIER THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 18-11- 2010 WHEN THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. URVA SHI SHODHAN, ADVOCATE SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT SHE WANTS TO FILE A PAPER BOOK AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 12-01-2011. TODAY THE LEA RNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN , ADVOCATE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION IN THE COURT STATING THAT SHE IS WITHDR AWING FROM THE CASE. THERE IS NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN CONTESTING THIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT D ECISION IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 AND THE DECISION OF TH E ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320, THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. PAGE 2 OF 2 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HE ARING ON 12 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH) (N.S. S AINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: AHMEDABAD, 12 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. COMPILED AND COMPARED BY: PATKI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)- 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 12-1-2011 --------------- ---- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 12-1-2011 ------ ------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 12-1-2011 -------- ----------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 12-1-2011 ---------- --------- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 12-1-2011 ------- ------------- 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 12-1-2011 ---------- ---------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 13-1-2011 ------- ------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE --------------- -------------------- A.R. 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER --------------- ---- -----------------