, ""
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - `D' BENCH.
[^ .
.. , Û Û],
. ,
Before S/Sh. I.P. Bansal,Judicial Member & Rajendra,Accountant Member
/.ITA No.813/Mum/2012 ,[ [/Assessment Year-2008-09
Quantum Real Estate and DCIT Central Circle 39
Property Development India Aayakar Bhavan, Ground Floor,
Ltd., 101 Kapadia Apartment, Vs. M.K.Road,
S.V.Road, Vile Parle (W) Mumbai-400020
Mumbai- 400056
PAN:AAACQ1375R
(/ Appellant) (× / Respondent)
/ Appellant by : NONE
× /Respondent by : Shri Salman Khan
/ Date of Hearing : 17-09-2013
/ Date of Pronouncement : 17-09-2013
/ O R D E R
PER RAJENDRA, AM
Following is the Ground of appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 08-12-2011 of
the CIT(A)-41, Mumbai for the AY 2008-09.
1. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [hereafter referred to as the CIT(A)] erred in
confirming the disallowance of interest to the extent of Rs. 50,11,602/- out of the total interest claimed Rs.
56,09,241/- u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Income tax Act, 1961 on the wrong appreciation of the facts of the case .
Your appellant submits that the entire amount of interest paid to Bank is for the purpose of business and is fully
allowable as a deduction u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act and the Assessing Officer may be directed to delete the said
disallowance of interest.
Your appellant craves leave to add to, alter or amend any of the aforestated grounds of appeal.
2. Assessee was informed that matter will be heard on 17-09-2013. 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:
2 ITA No.813/Mum/2012 Quantum Real Estate and Property Development India Ltd
"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.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17th September, 2013.
Û fnuka nukad 17.09.2013 .
Sd/- Sd/-
(.
... ,
, / I.P.Bansal)
(Û]/Rajendra)
Û /Judicial Member /Accountant Member
/Mumbai,/Date: 17.09 .2013
SK
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. Assessee / 2. Respondent /×
3. The concerned CIT(A)/ , 4.The concerned CIT /
5. DR "D" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai / . ,..Û.
6. Guard File/[
× //True Copy//
/ BY ORDER,
/ Dy./Asst. Registrar
, /ITAT, Mumbai
|
