GURMAIL SINGH, RAIPUR (CG) V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAGDALPUR (CG)

ITA 208/BIL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93990 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K JAIN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . IT A NO. 208 / BLPR./201 1 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 06 0 7 ) SHRI GURMAIL SINGH C/O R.B. DOSHI & CO. CHARTERED ACCOU NTANTS SADANI CHOWK, SADAR BAZAR RAIPUR (C.G) 492 001 PAN BBKPS7408C APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER JAGDALPUR (C.G) .... RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K. JAIN DATE OF HEARING 1 6 .06.2015 DATE OF ORDER 16 .06.2015 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YA H YA, A .M. T HIS APPEAL BY THE A SSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7 TH JULY 2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), BILASPUR, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06 07 . THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. I N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CI T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 28,23,720, MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS, INVOKING THE SHRI GURMAIL SINGH 2 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68. HE ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE BURDEN CAST UPON HIM U/S 68. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 2. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL WITHOUT CAUSING PROPER ENQUIRIES TO BE MADE, AS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVES APPEARED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT EITHER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS APPEAL. 3. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN M/S. CHEMIPOL V/S UNION OF INDIA & ORS., IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.62 OF 2009, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2009, WHILE CONSID ERING THE JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V/S S. CHENIAPPA MUDALIAR, AIR 1969 SC 1068, SUNDERLAL MANNALAL V/S NANDRAMDAS DWARKADAS, AIR 1958 MP 260, AND OTHER JUDGMENTS, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: - 6. WE CANNOT ALTOGETHER LOSE SIGHT OF THE RULE T HAT EVERY COURT OR TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO DISMISS A PROCEEDING FOR NON - PROSECUTION WHEN THE PETITION ER / APPELLANT BEFORE IT DOES NOT WISH TO PROSECUTE THE PROCEEDINGS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, UNLESS THE STATUTE CLEARLY REQUIRES THE COURT OR TRIBUN AL TO HEAR THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING AND DECIDE IT ON MERITS, IT CAN DISMISS THE APPEAL / PROCEEDING FOR . THE DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CIT V/S M/S. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (DEL.), HAS HELD THAT IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AP PEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AS UN ADMITTED. SHRI GURMAIL SINGH 3 4. APPLYING THE AFORESAID PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UN ADMITTED AND HOLD THE SAME AS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS SU CH. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 16 TH JUNE 2015 SD/ - MUKUL K. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAI PUR , DATED : 16 TH JUNE 2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE ; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A ) ; (4) THE CIT, BILASPUR CITY CONCERNED ; (5) THE DR, ITAT, RAIPUR (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, RAIPUR