ASRANI ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI V. ITO 22(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 4169/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 416919914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M L PERUMAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND N.K.BILLAIYA (AM ) . . , . . , ./I.T.A.NO.4169/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) M/S ASRANI ASSOCIATES, B-104, SWAMI JAIRAMDAS SOCIETY, CHEMBUR(E), MUMBAI-400071 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(2) 1, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AALFA8274F ( ' / APPELLANT) .. ( ( ' / RESPONDENT) ' / APPELLANT BY : NONE ( ' * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.L.PERUMAL * - / DATE OF HEARING : 2.1.2014 * - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2.1.2014 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST EX- PARTE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 28.1.2011 ON FOLLO WING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD.AO HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 1 44 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.65,00,000/- WHICH IS REFLE CTED AS ADVANCES AND THE LD.AO HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF APPELLANT AND WHICH WAS DULY UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 2. THE LD AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADHOC ADDITION OF 25% OF THE EXPENSES DISALLOWED AND WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 2. LASTLY THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.7. 2013 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED SUO MOTU TO 2.1.2014 WITH A NOTICE TO TH E ASSESSEE BY RPAD. 3. ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING, NO ONE IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT APP EARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN T HIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N.BHATTARCHARGEE AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 460, WHEREIN, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PU RSUING IT . WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY I.T.A.NO.4169/MUM/2012 2 THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M ULTIPLAN INDIA (P)LTD., 38 ITD 320(DEL). 4. BEFORE WE PART WITH THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WE MAY STATE THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL. 5. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2014 * 1 2 2 ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2014 * SD SD ( . . /N.K.BILLAIYA ) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. ( ' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. > ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. > / CIT 5. ? (A , - A , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) - A , /ITAT, MUMBAI