PARSOLI CORPORATION LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6505/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 650519914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARESH JOHRI DR

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.TA. NO.6505/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PARSOLI CORPORATION LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, ORACLE POING, 3 GURUNANAK ROAD, BANDRA(W) MUMBAI 400050. PAN: AABCP9030F VS. ITO 4 (2)(1) MUMBAI. ( ! / APPELLANT ) ( '# ! / RESPONDENT ) ! $ / APPELLANT BY : NONE '# ! % $ /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PARESH JOHRI (DR). & % '( / DATE OF HEARING : 07 -08-2013 )*+ % '( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 -08-2013 , / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM THE FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY TH E APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12-08-2011 OF THE CIT(A)-8, MUMBAI: 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,63,060/- BEING PENALTY @ 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF TECHNICAL FEES AMOUNTING TO RS. 91,00,000/-. THE APPELLANT PR AYS THAT PENALTY SO CONFIRMED MAY KINDLY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DEL ETE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. . 2. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER WILL BE HEARD ON 07-08-2013. BUT, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN TH IS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 460 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. I.TA. NO. 6505/MUM/2011 PARSOLI CORPORATION LTD. 2 3. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PRO VISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 07 TH AUGUST, 2013. , % )*+ - FNUKAD 07.08.2013 * % .. SD/- SD/- ( . . / B.R. MITTAL ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, 1& DATE: 07 TH AUGUST, 2013 SK , % ''2 32+' , % ''2 32+' , % ''2 32+' , % ''2 32+' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE #2' '' //TRUE COPY// ,& ,& ,& ,& / BY ORDER, 4 44 4 / 5 5 5 5 DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI