Apex Automotive, Ahmedabad V. The Jt.CIT.,Range-12, Ahmedabad

ITA 406/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 40620514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P R GHOSH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 406/ AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) M/S. APEX AUTOMOTIVE, 4-11, HARINAGAR, OPP. DHYANBHAI PARK, AHMEDABAD VS. JCIT, RANGE 12, AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AAIFA2821P (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P.R. GHOSH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 19.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19.10.2011 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 11.11.2008 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005- 06. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: A.S REGARDS THE DISALLOWING OF RS. 650007- OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPNESES THE LEANED ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 1 (IV) OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS STATED THAT 'THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 65,000 7- FOR THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR FOREIGN TOUR TO SMT. SULOC HANA SHAH. I.T.A.NO.406 /AHD/2009 2 IN RESPONSE TO SHOW-CAUSE, ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AS THE FIRM HA D TO START & RENOVATE NEW SPARES DIVISION. THE TOUR INVOICE DTD. 10-04-04 OF CLUB 7 HOLIDAYS P . LTD. SHOWS THAT SMT. SULOCHANA SHAH JOINED THE TOWN NAMELY ' F AR EAST SPENDOURS' TO VISIT SINGAPORE. THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN THE TRADING OF HONDA MOT ORCYCLE & LIMITED WHICH ARE MANUFACTURED BY HONDA COMPANY NAM E ITSELF INDICATES THAT THE TOUR UNDERTAKEN FOR PURPOSE. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 19.10.2011 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD AND THE NO TICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AVAILABLE O N RECORD. IN SPITE OF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO APPEARANCE OF ANYBODY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS DATE OF HEARING. THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS INFE RRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING HIS APPEAL AND HENCE, TH E SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, W E FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHE R, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 AND 478) WHEREIN TH EIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FIL ING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS C WT; 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT T HE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE I.T.A.NO.406 /AHD/2009 3 PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOB ODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJ OURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATIO N AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TR IBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 4. OTHERWISE, ON MERIT ALSO, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW TO ESTABLISH THAT THE TOUR OF SMT. SULOCHNA SHAH FOR 7 DAYS TO SINGAPORE WAS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 14 OF HIS ORDER THAT NOTHING BY WAY OF DISCUSSION, CONTRACT AGREEME NT OR SOME CONSEQUENTIAL RESULTS OF TOUR SO CLAIMED FOR THE BU SINESS COULD BE RELATED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, ON MERIT ALSO, WE DO NOT F IND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL A ND HENCE, ON MERIT ALSO, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH OCT., 2011. SD./- SD./- (T.K. SHARMA) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED : 19.10.2011 SP I.T.A.NO.406 /AHD/2009 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 19/10 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19/10 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S.19/10 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 19/10 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.20/10 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 20/10/2011 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..