Pradeep B. Vasa,Court House,Dhobi Talao,L.T. Marg,Mumbai 400 022. Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, 14(3),Mumbai.
June, 16th 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCHES "C" MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 8262/Mum/2010
Assessment Year 2007-08
Pradeep B. Vasa, Asst. Commissioner of
Court House, Income Tax, 14(3),
Dhobi Talao, Mumbai.
L.T. Marg, Vs.
Mumbai 400 022.
PAN: AABPV 1009R
Assessee by : NONE
Revenue by : Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, DR
Date of hearing : 14-06-2012
Date of pronouncement : 14-06-2012
PER RAJENDRA, A.M.
The assessee has filed this appeal against the Order
dt. 23-09-2010 of the CIT(A)-25, Mumbai on the following Grounds:
Grounds of Appeal:
"The learned CIT(A) erred in treating the House Property Income
from letting of Factory Premises of ` 9,30,000/- as Income from
Other Sources instead of Income from House Property as
computed by the Assessee and as assessed as such by the
Assessing Officer in Assessment Year 2006-07."
"The learned CIT erred in disallowing 1/3rd of Motor Car
Depreciation at ` 39,665/- though the car was used for the
purpose of business only".
2 ITA No. 8262/Mum/2010
Pradeep B. Vasa
"The learned CIT erred in disallowing 20% of total Telephone
Expenses at ` 10921/- stating that no log book is maintained
though all such expenses were incurred for the purpose of
business only and considering the volume of business, the total
expenses were very reasonable".
"The learned Assessing Officer erred in disallowing the entire
Salary and Wages of ` 4,92,000/- though the same were
expended for the purpose of business and erred in treating the
same at unreasonable and has not considered the fact that the
assessee had Trading activities of Oil and Share Trading"
"The learned CIT erred in disallowing interest and other expenses
at ` 11,62,184/- u/s. 14A by invoking to Rule 8D though the
same is not required to be invoked and no disallowance u/s. 14A
is warranted for".
2. Assessee was informed that matter will be heard on 14-06-2012.
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 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
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for
Order pronounced in the open court on 14th June, 2012.
(D.K. AGARWAL) (RAJENDRA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Date 14th June, 2012
3 ITA No. 8262/Mum/2010
Pradeep B. Vasa
3. The concerned CIT (A)
4. The concerned CIT
5. DR "C" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard File
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Mumbai Benches, Mumbai