DIVYA TEXTILES, V. DCIT 14(2),

MA 337/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9709 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DIMESH KUMAR
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI . . , . . ! , ' #$ % BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL, JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLA IYA, AM M.A. NOS. 337 TO 339/MUM/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 1094 TO 1096/MUM/2008 ( & & & & / ASSESSMENT YEARS :1999-2000, 2001-02 & 2002-03 M/S. DIVYA TEXTILES, 501, KAKAD MARKET, 5 TH FLOOR, 306, KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI-400002 / VS. THE DCIT 14(2), MUMBAI $' ' ./ () ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAAFD 0195P ( '* /APPLICANT ) .. ( +,'* / RESPONDENT ) '* - / APPLICANT BY: NONE +,'* . - / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DIMESH KUMAR . /0' / DATE OF HEARING : 14.12.2012 12& . /0' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :14.12.2012 #3 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE REQ UESTED TO RECTIFY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DT. 23.12.2009 BY ALLOWING THE DEDUC TION U/S. 80HHC OF THE ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATION, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT THROUGH REGD. A.D. TO TH E ASSESSEE ON 9.11.2012. IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSEC UTING THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. HENCE THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION O F THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, W E ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHARGEE AN D ANOTHER, REPORTED IN M.A. NOS. 337 TO 339/MUM/2012 2 118 ITR 460 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEI R LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 4. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECI SION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PR OVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE A SSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING I.E. ON 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R.MITTAL) (N.K. BILLAIYA) #$ /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' #$ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 4# DATED 14.12.2012 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS #3 #3 #3 #3 . .. . +/ +/ +/ +/ 5&/ 5&/ 5&/ 5&/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,'* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 6 / CIT 5. 78 +/ , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 89 : / GUARD FILE. #3 #3 #3 #3 / BY ORDER, ,/ +/ //TRUE COPY// ; ;; ; / < < < < ( ( ( ( (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI