SMT. SAJANI SINGH AJWANI, MUMBAI V. CIT 19, MUMBAI

ITA 4399/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3771 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS GIRIJA DAYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: STANY SALDANHA
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENC H, MUMBAI , ! ' . # ! , % & BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM ./I.T.A. NO.4398/M/2011 ( ' ( !)( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-2008) M/S. SAJANI SUJAN AJWANI, 601/602, ENCHANTE, 14 TH ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI 400 052. ' / VS. CIT - 19, MUMBAI. * % ./PAN :AEIPA 3721 Q ( *+ /APPELLANT) .. ( , -*+ / RESPONDENT) ./I.T.A. NO.4399/M/2011 ( ' ( !)( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-2008) SHRI SUJAN SINGH AJWANI, 601/602, ENCHANTE, 14 TH ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI 400 052. ' / VS. CIT - 19, MUMBAI. * % ./PAN :ACJPA 1434 B ( *+ /APPELLANT) .. ( ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) *+ . / / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI STANY SALDANHA, AR ,-*+ . / / REVENUE BY : MRS. GIRIJA DAYAL, CIT - DR '! . 0% /DATE OF HEARING : 15.5.2013 12) . 0% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.5.2013 3 3 3 3 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. BOTH TH E APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT-19, MUMBAI U/S 263 OF THE ACT. SINCE, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE I DENTICAL AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS THE SAME, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BOTH THESE A PPEALS ARE CLUBBED AND BEING ADJUDICATED IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. BEFORE US, SHRI STANY SALDANHA, LD COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT INTERESTED TO PROCEED WITH TH E APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, HE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS THE APPEALS. TO THAT EXTENT, HE 2 GAVE IN WRITING BEFORE THE BENCH. ON THE OTHER HA ND, LD DR HAS NO OBJECTION FOR THE PROPOSAL OF THE LD COUNSEL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. CONSIDERING THE LD COUNSELS REQUEST FOR NOT PRESSING THE APPEAL AND N O OBJECTION FROM THE LD DR, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE REVIEW OF THE CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED . 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH MAY, 2013. 3 . 12) % 4'5678978:96; 2 . < SD/- SD/- (B.R. MITTAL) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 4' DATED 15/ 5/2013 ! . ' . ./ OKK , SR. PS 3 3 3 3 . .. . ,0= ,0= ,0= ,0= >=)0 >=)0 >=)0 >=)0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ? ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ? / CIT 5. =!@< ,0' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. <'( A / GUARD FILE. 3 -=0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// 3' 3' 3' 3' / BY ORDER, B BB B / C C C C D D D D (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI