ASHAR MEHTA ASSOCIATES, MUMBAI V. ACIT 17(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5069/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71288 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SU RENDRA KUMAR

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND SANJAY ARORA (AM) . . , , & ./I.T.A. NO.5069/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09) M/S ASHAR MEHTA ASSOCIATES, RASHMI ZAVERI AND CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, ARHAM, GR. FLOOR, PLOT NO.266, SION (E), MUMBAI-400022 / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 17(2) MUMBAI. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFA3385Q ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : NONE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR ' / DATE OF HEARING : 25.9.2013 ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.9.2013 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09 AGAINST ORDER DATED 15.6.2012 OF LD CIT(A)-34, MUMBAI ON THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS : 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING SET OFF OF LOSS OF RS.9,75,60 2/- OF APPELLANT FIRMS DUBAI BRANCH TEAM SPACE MARKETING MANAGEMENT CONSULTANC Y (TMMC). YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT TOTAL LOSS OF RS.9,75,602/- OF ITS DUBAI BRANCH SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT FIRM; 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT FIRM AND IT S DUBAI BRANCH VIZ. TMMC ARE TWO SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITIES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT T HE DUBAI BRANCH, VIZ TMMC, IS FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES AND IN SUBSTANCE A BRAN CH OF THE APPELLANT FIRM 2. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD FIXI NG THE DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL 25.9.2013. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E, NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR I.T.A. NO.5069/MUM/2012 2 ADJOURNMENT. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT I NTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORT ED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N.BHATTARCHARGE E AND ANOTHER, 118 ITR 460, WHEREIN, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT . WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT D ELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P)LTD., 38 ITD 320(DEL). 3. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PROVIS IONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIA BLE TO BE DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25TH SEPTE MBER, 2013 ( * + 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 SD SD ( /SANJAY ARORA) ( . . 1 /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; . . ./ SRL , SR. PS ) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 2 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 2 / CIT 5. 3 5 , ' 5 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI