BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3811/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8958 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES K, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3811/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S. BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 13, SITAFALWADI, DR. MASCARENHAS ROAD, MAZGAON, MUMBAI [PAN : AAACJ 2845 F] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6(1), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANAND MOHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 29-11-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-12-2018 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, MUMBAI-1 WHICH IS ARISI NG OUT OF ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIR CLE-6(1) MUMBAI, PASSED U/S 144C(13) R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT , DATED 27-01-2014 FOR THE AY. 2009-10. ITA NO. 3811/MUM/2014 2 2. INITIALLY, THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11 -01-2018 AND SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE, THE C ASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 06-06-2018, FOR WHICH NOTICE WAS ISSUED THROUGH RPAD. AGAIN ON 06-06-2018 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 29-11-2018 WHICH WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. AGAIN ON 29-11-2018, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NOR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. THEREFORE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEA L AND THE APPEAL IS BEING DISPOSED OFF AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL. 3. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS ON RECORDS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MA TERIALS TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. 4. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO THE APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE A S TILL DATE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REMOVED THE DEFECTS POINTED OU T BY THE REGISTRY. THE DRP ORDER WHICH IS THE MOST CRUCIAL DOCU MENT FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . FOR THIS REASON ALSO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3811/MUM/2014 3 5. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOL D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /MUMBAI; /DATED : 21 ST DECEMBER, 2018 TNMM / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !' / THE APPELLANT 2. #!' / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ % ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI 4. $ % / CIT(A), MUMBAI 5. ()* +, , $ .+,$/ , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. *012 / GUARD FILE ITA NO. 3811/MUM/2014 4 $ / BY ORDER, # //TRUE COPY// / $ (DY./ASST. REGISTRAR) $ .+,$/, / ITAT, MUMBAI