DILIP D. PATIL, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8762/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 71656 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SAHU
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.MITTAL,(JM) AND SANJAY ARORA (AM) . . , , ./I.T.A. NO.8762/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHRI DILIP D.PATIL, 01/271/A, EMPIRE GALAXY, SHERE PUNJAB, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI-400093. / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 20(2)(1), MUMBAI. ( ( / APPELLANT) .. ( ) ( / RESPONDENT) ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : ACNPP1337L ( /: APPELLANT BY NONE ) ( , / RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.K.SAHU , / / DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2013 , / /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2013 / O R D E R PER B.R.MITTAL, JM: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06 AGAINST ORDER DATED 21.9.2010 OF LD CIT(A)-31, MUMBAI. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS DISPUTED THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.60,00,000/-, RS.60,000/- U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(THE ACT) AND RS.31,722/-, RS.11,000/- AND RS.1,76,278/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12.8.2013 A ND AT THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEE IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 21.11.2013. ON 21.11.2013 NONE AP PEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. IN THIS 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, WHEREI N, THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT . WE I.T.A. NO.8762/MUM/2010 2 ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P)LTD., 38 ITD 320(DEL). 4. 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. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2013 , 2 3 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2013 , SD SD ( / SANJAY ARORA) ( . . /B.R.MITTAL) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ( / THE APPELLANT 2. ) ( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. 7 / CIT CONCERNED 5. 8 ): , / : , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / : , /ITAT, MUMBAI