2012 (11) TMI 142

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., none attended on behalf of the assessee nor filed any application for the adjournment of the case, therefore, it was decided to dispose of the appeal ex parte qua the assessee, on merits, after hearing the ld. D.R. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company was incorporated on 18-3-92 under the name of M/s Vikin Finance Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently on 30-6-93 its name was changed to M/s Credential Investments & Finance Ltd. Thereafter, the name of the company was once again changed to M/s Credential Finance Ltd. The main business of the company is to deal in all kinds of financial documents like bills of exchange, hundis, I.O.U.'s promissory notes and other negotiable instruments including carry out of the business of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... interested in pursuing the appeal. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee and Anr. (118 ITR 461) (at pages 477/478) that appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, Court/Tribunal have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for nonprosecution as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009. We are convinced that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted. ITA No. 5210/Mum/2001 (Revenue's appeal) 7. The sole ground taken by the Revenue reads as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....INDER STEELS LTD. Air pollution control equipmentscrubber 15-3- 1995/5 yrs 14781250 7390625 ASHISH ENGG. WORKS (Sold to Prakash) PRAKASH INDUSTRIES LTD. Dust collector system 13-2- 1995/5 yrs 10805850 5402925           62640625 9. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) while holding that the lessees are genuine and bonafide and not finance transaction as held by the A.O., however, restricted the disallowance of depreciation to Rs. 69,63,000/- being the excess depreciation on account of over valuation of the equipment. 10. At the time of hearing the ld. D.R. while relying on the order of the A.O. submits that now the issue stands covered in favour of the Revenue by the order of the Special Bench of the t....