Devangi R.Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-10(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 182/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9097 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETU SHAH
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH SMC, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI I.S. VERMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.182/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) DEVANGI R SHAH VS ITO, WD.10(1) 53, LAVANYA SOCIETY AHMEDABAD NEW VIKAS GRUH ROAD VASNA, AHMEDABAD PAN : AAACV6899H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION RESPONDENT BY: SMT. NEETU SHAH O R D E R IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 24-11-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 BY WAY OF FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1.1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING T HAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO REBATE U/S. 88E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 1.2 THAT THE VARIOUS REASONS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNE D CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF CLAIM OF RS.70,799 FOR SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX U/S 88E OF THE ACT IS CONTRARY TO T HE FACTS OF THE CASE AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. 1.3 AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME BY MISTA KE STT WAS SHOWN AS DEDUCTION FORM BUSINESS INCOME INSTEAD OF CLAIMING REBATE OVER IT. AT THE TIME OF PASSING AS SESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY ADDED BACK STT TO THE TOTAL INCOME U/S 40(A)(IB) BUT WHEN THE APPELLANT C LAIMED REBATE OF STT BY RECTIFICATION APPLICATION THE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW THE SAME. THE APPE LLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE RELIEF SHOULD BE ALLO WED TO THE APPELLANT IF SHE IS RIGHTLY ENTITLED TO. ITA NO.182/AHD/2010 2 1.4 THE APPELLANT THEREFORE SUBMITS THAT THE STT SH OULD BE ALLOWED AS REBATE U/S 88E OF THE ACT. 1.5 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER OR TO AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE FINAL HEARING OF AP PEAL. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE CASE IS CALLED ON FOR HEARING. THERE IS ALSO NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNM ENT. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD. EVEN OTHERWIS E, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE OR ITS COUNSEL IS NOT AWARE OF TH E DATE OF HEARING AS THE CAUSE LISTS ARE LISTED IN ITAT ONLINE. IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTING THE APPEAL. THE LAW ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLE EP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIG ILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT THEREFORE, APPLYING THE RATIO OF DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKAOJIRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (MP) AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD 38 ITD 320 (DEL) I TR EAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 09 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010. SD/- (I.S. VERMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DT : 09 TH FEBRUARY, 2010 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3. THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT,AHMEDABAD V, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 5. THE DR, SMC BENCH (TRUE COPY) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD