ATTALIKA REALTORS P.LTD, LUCKNOW V. ITO 4(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4670/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75185 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 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: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M L PERUMAL

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.4670/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) M/S ATTALIKA REALTORS PVT LTD., 75, GROUND FLOOR, TEJ KUMAR PLAZA, HAZARATGANJ, LUCKNOW-226001. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(1)(3) , AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAFCA9654E ( ' / 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 2008-09 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 16.4.2012 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE A PPELLANT AND IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,65,788/- MADE BY AO. 2. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LIABILITIES HAVE NOT CEASED TO EXISTS AND THE SAME ARE OUTSTANDING AND THE APPELLANTS PROJEC T IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND AS SUCH THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS ARE PAYABLE AN D CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE APPELLANTS INCOME U/S 41(10) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. 2. LASTLY THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 20.8. 2013 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED SUO MOTU TO 2.1.2014 WITH A NOTICE TO TH E ASSESSEE BY RPAD. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS IS EVIDENCED BY RPAD CARD ON RECORD. 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.4670/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