HABIBA KARIM DHANANI, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 9167/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8437 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 30-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAKESH RANJAN SR AR
• Section: 68; 6

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H MUMBAI . . , / BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND , SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.TA. NO. 9167/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 MRS. HABIBA KARIM DHANANI, MAKKER & CO., SHOP NO.9 CHAMPSI BHIMJI ROAD, OPP. MAZGAON TOWER, MAZGAON, MUMBAI 400 010. PAN: AEJPD 5584 K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 19(3)(2), PIRAMAL CHAMBER, MUMBAI-400 012. ( / APPELLANT ) ( ! / RESPONDENT ) ' / APPELLANT BY : NONE ! # ' /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAKESH RANJAN (SR.AR) $ # %& / DATE OF HEARING : 30-10-2012 '() # %& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-10-2012 * / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM THE FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY TH E APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 25-10-2010 OF THE CIT(A)-30, MUMBAI: THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) [HEREI NAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 47,80,790/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNE D PROFIT OF RS. 9,16,507/-. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ER RED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS ALSO PASSED THE EX-PA RTE ORDER WHICH IS AGAIN NOT JUSTIFIED AND SAME IS BAD IN LAW. THE REASON FOR VARIOUS ADJ OURNMENT WAS PURELY ON MEDICAL GROUND. I.TA. NO. 9167/MUM/2010 MRS. HABIBA KARIM DHANANI 2 THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS ERR ED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 6 8 OF THE I.T. ACT, IS CORRECT WHICH IS ALSO BAD IN LAW. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND A NY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER WILL BE HEARD ON 30-10-2012. 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 30 TH OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( . . / I.P. BANSAL ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, +$ DATE: 30 TH OCTOBER, 2012 TNMM * * * * # ## # %, %, %, %, -,)% -,)% -,)% -,)% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE !,% % //TRUE COPY// *$ *$ *$ *$ / BY ORDER, . .. . / / / / / DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR , / ITAT, MUMBAI