DIVYA EXTILES, MUMBAI V. DCIT 14(2), MUMBAI

ITA 7887/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70851 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARIGOVIND SINGH
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - D BENCH. . , ! ! ! ! '#$% '#$% '#$% '#$% , # # # # &' &' &' &' BEFORE S/SH.D.MANMOHAN,VICE-PRESIDENT & RAJENDRA,AC COUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO.7887/MUM/2011 , ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2002-03 M/S DIVYA TEXTILES 501, KAKAD MARKET 306, KALBADEVI ROAD MUMBAI- 400002 VS. DCIT 14(2) MUMBAI PAN:AAAFD0195P ( )* / APPELLANT) ( +,)* / RESPONDENT) )* )* )* )* - - - - # ## # / APPELLANT BY : NONE +,)* . - # / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARIGOVIND SINGH . .. . / / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 02-09-2013 0( . / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-09-2013
/ O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM THE FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY TH E APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05-10-2011 OF THE CIT(A)-25, MUMBAI FOR THE AY 2002 -03. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19987130/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME M ADE BY THE LD. A.O. BY REDUCING THE LEGITIMATE CLAI M OF DEDUCTION MADE U/S. 80HHC OF THE I.T.ACT FROM RS . 23012079/- TO RS. 3024949/- AND THE REASON ASSIGNED FOR DOING SO ARE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF INCOME TAX AND RULES MADE THERE UNDER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. CHARGING INTEREST U/S. 234C & 234D OF THE I.T.ACT AND THE REASONS ASSIGNED HERE FOR DOING SO ARE WRONG AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIO N OF INCOME TAX AND RULES MADE THERE UNDER. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVE, LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE TH E DATE OF HEARING. 2. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER WILL BE HEARD ON 02-09-2013. BUT, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOUR NMENT. 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 DISMISS ED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. 2 ITA NO.7887/MUM/2012 M/S DIVYA TEXTILES. 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). 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 DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 02 ND SEPTEMBER, 2013.
. 0( # $ 4 FNUKAD NUKAD NUKAD NUKAD 02.09.2013 . 5. SD/- SD/- ( . / D. MANMOHAN ) ( '#$% '#$% '#$% '#$% / RAJENDRA) / VICE-PRESIDENT # # # # &' &' &' &' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 7& /DATE: 02.09 .2013 SK



. .. . +/8 +/8 +/8 +/8 9#8(/ 9#8(/ 9#8(/ 9#8(/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / )* 2. RESPONDENT / +,)* 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ : ; , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / : ; 5. DR D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / 8<5 +/ . , . . $ . 6. GUARD FILE/ 5 = ,8/ +/ //TRUE COPY//
/ BY ORDER, / ' DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI