IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI "E" BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
AND
SHRI RAJENDRA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
ITA No. : 2279/Mum/2011
Assessment Year : 2007-08
M/s. SDL Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Ward 7(2)(2)
21-53-A, Brindavan Soc., Mumbai : 400007
Thane (W) 400601
PAN No. AAACS9479E
(Appellant ) (Respondent)
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Mr. V. Krishnmoorth
Date of hearing : 25.10.2012
Date of pronouncement : 25.10.2012
ORDER
PER RAJENDRA, A.M.
The assessee has filed this appeal against the order dt. 21.10.2010 of the
CIT(A)-13, Mumbai on the following Grounds:
"I FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL :
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming disallowance of
electricity expenses of Rs.52,27,316.
2. He failed to appreciate that the electricity expenses allowable as
expenses.
3. The appellant prays that the disallowance of electricity expenses of
Rs.52,27,316 be deleted.
II SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL :
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming disallowance of
transportation expenses of Rs.10,75,721.
2. He failed to appreciate that the transportation expenses allowable as
expenses.
3. The appellant prays that the disallowance of transportation expenses of
Rs.10,75,721 be deleted.
2
ITA No. : 2279/Mum/2011
M/s. SDL Steel Pvt. Ltd.
III THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL :
1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming disallowance of
Rs.2,55,117 (being 10% of 25,51,175) on account of salary expenses.
2. He failed to appreciate that the expenditure were allowable as
expenses.
3. The appellant prays that the disallowance of expenditure of
Rs.2,55,117 be deleted."
2. On 25.10.2012 when the case taken up for hearing no one appeared on
behalf of assessee. Nor there was any application for adjournment. From the
records available it is found that firstly on 10.01.2012, the appeal was fixed for
hearing but none was present on behalf of assessee and hence the same was
adjourned to 04.04.2012. Again on 04.04.2012 none appeared on behalf of
assessee because the C.A. of assessee who was attending this matter was out of
town and at the request of the assessee the same was adjourned to 21.06.2012. As
the bench did not functioned on 21.06.2012, the same was adjourned to
25.10.2012. In view of these facts, it appears that assessee is not interested in
prosecuting this appeal. Hence this appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed
for non- prosecution. In this regard, we are supported by the decision in the 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 appeal but effectively pursuing it".
3. In this regard we are also supported by the decision in the case of CIT Vs
Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del).
4. In view of the above, and also considering the provision of Rule 19 of the
Appellate Tribunal rules, 1963, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
3
ITA No. : 2279/Mum/2011
M/s. SDL Steel Pvt. Ltd.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25th October, 2012
sd/- sd/-
(D. MANMOHAN) (RAJENDRA)
VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place: Mumbai
Dated: 25th October, 2012
Rasika
Copy to:
1. The appellant
2. The respondent
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Mumbai
4. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai
5. The Departmental Representative, Bench `E' Mumbai
//TRUE COPY// BY ORDER
ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI
|
