, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A MUMBAI . . , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND , SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.TA. NO. 7234/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 M/S. ASHA ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, 14B, STERLING APARTMENTS, 38, G, DESHMUKH MARG, MUMBAI 400 026. PAN: AADCP 4504 A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 15(1)(4), MUMBAI. ( / APPELLANT ) ( ! / RESPONDENT ) ' / APPELLANT BY : NONE ! # ' /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR $ # %& / DATE OF HEARING : 11-10-2012 '() # %& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-10-2012 * / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM THE FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY TH E APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 11-08-2010 OF THE CIT(A)-9, MUMBAI: 1.0 GROUND-1 EXPENDITURE OF RS. 5,95,603/- FOR FOREIGN TRAVEL ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-9, MUMBAI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LE ARNED CIT(A)]HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRA VELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 5,95,603/- INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS BY TREATING IT AS PERSONA L EXPENDITURE OF THE DIRECTORS / EMPLOYEES. I.TA. NO. 7234/MUM/2010 M/S. ASHA ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, 2 2.0 GROUND 2 LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS. 1,00,000/- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,00,000/- OF LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL FEES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE , HOLDING IT AS NON BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 3.0 GROUND-3 TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 1,00,000/- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 1,00,000/- DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT TRE ATING IT AS NON BUSINESS EXPENSES EACH OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS INDEPENDENT OF AN WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHERS. YOURS APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND, ALTER, CHANGE OR CANCEL ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HE ARING. 2. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER WILL BE HEARD ON 11-10-2012. 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 INT ERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE D ISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN TH E 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. 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). IT(SS )A NO. 01/MUM/2008 SUNNY SOUNDS P. LTD., 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PRO VISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, +$ DATE: 11 TH OCTOBER, 2012 I.TA. NO. 7234/MUM/2010 M/S. ASHA ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, 3 TNMM * * * * # ## # %, %, %, %, -,)% -,)% -,)% -,)% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE !,% % //TRUE COPY// *$ *$ *$ *$ / BY ORDER, . .. . / / / / / DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI