Jasubhai Jewellers Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Jt.CIT.,Range-4, Ahmedabad

ITA 438/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76694 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Revised return
• Section: 10AA; 234B; 139(5); 139

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NO.438/AHD/2013 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) JASUBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, MILLENNIUM PLAZA JUDGES BUNGALOW ROAD VASTRAPUR AHMEDABAD / VS. THE JT.CIT RANGE-4 AHMEDABAD ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCC 8395 G ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : - NONE - ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR.DR ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 15/05/2014 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/05/2014 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VIII-AHMEDAB AD DATED 30/11/2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWA NCE OF DEDUCTION OF RS.43,12,008 ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2013 JASUBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT U/S. 10AA OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF ITS UNIT IN SURAT SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE AP PRECIATED, INTER ALIA,: (A) THAT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM WAS IN RESPECT O F PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM (I) EXPORT OF GOLD MEDALLIONS MANUFACTURED BY ITS AFORESAID SEZ UNIT (FROM GOLD BULLION DIRECTLY IMPORTED BY IT OR IMPORTED GOL D BULLION PURCHASED BY IT FROM MMTC) AND (II) FROM EXPORT OF CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS I MPORTED BY IT; (B) THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER'S CONCLU SION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT MANUFACTURED GOLD MEDALLIONS HAD BEEN ARRIVED AT AF TER IGNORING POSITIVE EVIDENCE AND ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICIONS AND SURMISES ARISING IN HIS MIND FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF TH E APPELLANT'S UNIT HAD NOT BEEN DEBITED WITH ANY EMPLOYEE COST OR LABOUR CHARGES AN D THAT THE TIME LAG BETWEEN RECEIPT OF IMPORTED GOLD AND EXPORT OF MEDALLIONS W AS ONLY A DAY OR TWO AND, THEREFORE, VERY SHORT; (C) THAT, SIMILARLY, HIS CONCLUSION AGAINST GRA NTING DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS FROM THE EXPORT OF CUT AND POLISHED DIAMO NDS IMPORTED BY THE APPELLANT WAS BASED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT NOT HAVI NG DONE ANY CUTTING AND POLISHING ITSELF, THERE WAS NO VALUE ADDITION AND FURTHER, ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION CLEARLY REFLECTED IN THE AVERMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I MPUGNED BEFORE HIM, AS TO WHY WOULD ANY FOREIGN PARTY IMPORT CUT AND POLISHED DIA MONDS FROM THE APPELLANT IN INDIA WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD ITSELF IMPORTED FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN IN DUBAI; (D) THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN SECTION 10AA REQUIRING VALUE ADDITION IN ANY PARTICULAR MANNER; THAT THE VERY FACT THAT RE-EXPORT OF IMPORTED CUT A ND POLISHED DIAMONDS HAD RESULTED INTO PROFIT CONCLUSIVELY SHOWED VALUE ADDITION; (E) THAT, IN ANY CASE, THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA WAS AVAILABLE NOT ONLY IN R ESPECT OF PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM EXPORT OF ARTICLES O R THINGS MANUFACTURED OR PRODUCED BY THE UNIT, BUT ALSO FOR PROFITS DERIVED FROM SERV ICES; THAT, RULE 76 OF THE SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES RULES 2006 EXPRESSLY PROVIDED NOT ONLY THAT 'TRADING' WAS COVERED BY THE WORD 'SERVICES' BUT FURTHER, IT CATEGORICALLY REQUIRED THAT THE EXPRESSION 'TRADING' SHALL MEAN IMPORT FOR THE PURPOSES OF RE-EXPORT; THAT, THEREFORE, THE PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED BY THE UNIT FROM THE EXPORT OF IM PORTED CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS WERE CLEARLY ELIGIBLE TO THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA; (F) THAT, FOR THE ABOVE REASON (THAT TRADING WAS COVERED BY 'SERVICES' ENVISAGED B Y SECTION 10AA), EVEN IF IT WERE ASSUMED FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY THAT THE APPELLANT'S UNIT HAD NOT MANUFACTURED MEDALLIONS BU T EXPORTED GOLD AS ALLEGED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PROFITS FROM SUCH EX PORT WOULD NEVERTHELESS QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA. ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2013 JASUBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - 1.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING, IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE LEA RNED CIT(A) TO UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE: (A) WITHOUT AT ALL CONSIDERING VITAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAD EVEN BEEN REPRO DUCED IN THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER (PARA 5.2 ON PAGE 7 THEREOF) EXPLAI NING, INTER ALIA, WHY THE UNIT'S PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT HAD NOT BEEN DEBITED WITH A NY EMPLOYEE COST OR LABOUR CHARGES FOR MANUFACTURE OF GOLD MEDALLIONS AND WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH, THE APPELLANT HAD EVEN SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM [I.E. BEFOR E THE LEARNED CIT(A)] A STATEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE WORKING OF THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION: (1) AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PROPORTIONATE APP ORTIONMENT OF EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT'S OVERALL BUSINESS TO ITS SURAT SEZ UNIT (IN THE PROPORTION OF TURNOVER OF THE SURAT UNIT VISA-VIS TOTAL TURNOVER) AND ACCORDING T O WHICH WORKING, THE QUANTUM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA WAS WORKED OUT TO RS.1,72,81,25 0 (AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S REVISED CLAIM OF RS.1,89,05,825 MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF T HE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (7) OF SECTION 10AA INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 AND (2) ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION THAT EXPORT CORRESPONDING TO IMPORTED GOLD PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT FROM MMTC MAY NOT QUALIF Y FOR DEDUCTION SINCE 'TRADING' INCLUDED IN 'SERVICES' IN SECTION 10AA MAY NOT TAKE IN SUCH RE-EXPORT OF GOODS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF NOT IMPORTED AND AS PER WHI CH WORKING, THE QUANTUM OF THE DEDUCTION HAD BEEN ARRIVED AT AT RS. 1,53,71,366 (E VEN AS THAT ASSUMPTION WAS NOT AT ALL WARRANTED IN VIEW OF THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE MI NISTRY OF COMMERCE TO WHICH HIS PARTICULAR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN); (B) IGNORING SUCH CATEGORICAL INSTRUCTIONS ISSU ED BY THE MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AS UNDER TO WHICH HIS SPECIFIC ATTENTION H AD BEEN DRAWN AND WHICH HAD EVEN BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE 13 OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLAT E ORDER: (A) INSTRUCTION NO. 1/2006 DATED 24.3.2006: '2. AS DECIDED IN THE MEETING, YOU MAY KINDLY NOTE THAT TRADING FOR THE PURPOSES OF RULE 76 OF THE SEZ RULES WOULD BE CONFINED TO IMPOR T OF GOODS FOR EXPORTS. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE CASE OF PROPOSALS FOR SETTING U P OF TRADING UNITS, THE APPROVAL COMMITTEE MAY CONSIDER INCORPORATING A PROVISO TO C LAUSE (I) AND (IV) (FORM G). THE PROVISO MAY READ AS UNDER: PROVIDED THAT A UNIT HAVING LETTER OF APPROVAL FOR TRADING SHALL NOT PROCURE GOODS FROM THE DTA FOR TRADING.' (B) INSTRUCTION NO.4/2006 DATED 24,05.2006: 'IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT WHILE UNITS IN THE SPECIA L ECONOMIC ZONE WHO HOLD APPROVAL TO DO TRADING ACTIVITIES WILL BE ALLOWED TO CARRY OUT ALL FORMS OF TRADING ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2013 JASUBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - ACTIVITY, THE BENEFITS UNDER SECTION 10AA WILL EXCLUDE TRADING OTHER THAN TRADING IN THE NATURE OF RE-EXPORT OF IMPORTED GOODS. APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS IN THIS REGARD ARE BEING ISSUED. 2. IN THE MEANTIME, SOURCING FROM DOMESTIC AREA MAY BE PERMITTED BY UNITS IN THE SEZS WHICH ARE ALLOWED TO DO TRADING, SUBJECT TO TH IS CIRCULAR BEING CITED AND ON PRODUCTION OF AN UNDERTAKING THE CONCERNED UNIT THA T NO INCOME TAX BENEFITS WILL BE AVAILABLE BY THE UNIT FOR TRADING, EXCEPT IN THE NA TURE OF RE-EXPORT OF IMPORTED GOODS. 3. DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONERS ARE REQUESTED TO NOTE THE ABOVE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.' THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT ALSO TO HAVE APPRECIATED T HAT WITH THE CLARIFICATION CONTAINED IN THE SECOND OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTIONS, THERE WAS NO QUESTION FOR THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM EVEN TO BE PARTIALLY JEOPARDIZED ON THE GROUND THAT EVEN AS ALL THE EXPORTS OF GOLD MEDALLIONS BY THE APPELLANT'S UNIT WERE FROM IMPORTED GOLD, A PART THEREOF HAVING BEEN IMPORTED BY MMTC FROM WHOM THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED IT, HAD NOT BEEN IMPORTED DIRECTLY BY THE APPELLANT. 2. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN IN UPHOLDING THE LEARNE D ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION OF REJECTING THE REVISION IN THE QUANTUM OF THE APPELL ANT'S CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10- AAFROM RS.43,12,008 AS PER ITS RETURN TO RS. 1,89,0 5,825, ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD BEEN MADE BY MEANS OF A LETTER ADDRESSED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT BY FILING A REVISED RETURN AS REQUIRED BY THE DECIS ION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V. CIT (284 ITR 323). THE LEARNED CIT( A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA,: (A) THAT THE APPELLANT'S RETURN FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD BEEN DULY FILED ON 29-09-2009; (B) THAT IT WAS BECAUSE THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 I NSERTED A PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (7) OF SECTION 10AA WHICH HAD A MAJOR RETROSPECTIVE IMPACT ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE QUANTUM OF THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA HAD TO BE COMPUTED (RETROSPECTIVELY FROM 1.4.2006 WITH EFFECT FROM WHICH SECTION 10AA HAD IT SELF BEEN INSERTED) THAT THE APPELLANT HAD TO REVISE THE QUANTUM OF THE DEDUCTIO N CLAIMED BY IT IN ITS RETURN; THAT SINCE THIS AMENDMENT ITSELF HAD BEEN MADE LONG AFTER THE APPELLANT'S RETURN HAD BEEN FILED, AND FURTHER, SINCE ONLY ONE CLAIM IN ITS RET URN WAS REQUIRED TO BE CHANGED, THE APPELLANT HAD REVISED IT BY ADDRESSING A LETTER TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; (C) THAT, IN ANY CASE, FILING OF REVISED RETURNS WAS ENVISAGED BY SECTION 139(5) ONLY WHERE AN ASSESSES HAD DISCOVERED ANY OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT IN THE RETURN ALREADY FILED BY HIM; THAT THE APPELLANT'S R EVISION OF ITS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA HAVING ARISEN UPON AN AMENDMENT MADE LONG AFTER ITS RETURN WAS FILED, ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2013 JASUBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - REQUIRING A DIFFERENT METHOD OF COMPUTATION OF THE QUANTUM OF THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10AA WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.2006, IT CA NNOT BE SUGGESTED THAT ITS RETURN CONTAINED ANY OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT AS SUCH SO THAT THE APPELLANT COULD BE FORCED TO FILE A REVISED RETURN FOR MAKING THE C LAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMENDED PROVISION; (D) THAT THUS, BY NO STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION , IT CAN EVEN BE ALLEGED THAT BY MAKING ITS CLAIM BY MEANS OF A LETTER INSTEAD OF BY FILING A REVISED RETURN, THE APPELLANT WAS CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISION FOR LIMIT ATION CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 139 FOR FILING A REVISED RETURN (WHICH IS WHY THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER I HAD REJECTED THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM RELYIN G ON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V. CIT (284 IT R 323); THAT FOR THIS REASON, THE APPELLANT'S CASE WAS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM T HAT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS AFORESAID DECISION; (E) THAT, IN ANY CASE, THE DECISION OF THE SUPR EME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V. CIT (284 ITR 323) ITSELF CATEGORICALLY NOTES THAT T HE ISSUE DECIDED BY IT WAS LIMITED TO THE POWER OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND DID NOT IM PINGE ON THE POWER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL U/S. 254; THAT, AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN ITS UNREPORTED DECISION IN CIT V. ARVIND M ILLS LTD. [TAX APPEAL/1407/2011-ORDER DATED 05/07/2012] TO WHICH H IS SPECIFIC ATTENTION HAD BEEN DRAWN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE DE CISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V. CIT (284 ITR 323) WAS NOT A BAR ON THE POWER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW A LEGITIMATE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF HE HAD NOT FILED A REVISED RETURN FOR MAKING THAT CLAIM. (F) THAT LAW WAS VERY WELL SETTLED THAT THE UL TIMATE PURPOSE OF ALL ASSESSMENT, APPELLATE, RECTIFICATION, REVISION AND SIMILAR OTHE R PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TAXABLE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE; THAT LAW WAS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT IF AN ASSESSEE WAS EL IGIBLE TO A DEDUCTION OR EXEMPTION, IT THE AUTHORITIES WERE BOUND TO GIVE THE SAME EVEN IF IT HAD NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE; THAT THEREFORE, IF, BECAUSE A RETROSPECTI VE AMENDMENT TO THE LAW HAD COME TO BE MADE AFTER THE APPELLANT'S RETURN HAD BEEN FI LED AND ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT IMPACTED ONLY ONE ITEM OF DEDUCTION IN ITS RETURN, THE APPELLANT SOUGHT REVISION OF THAT ITEM BY ADDRESSING A LETTER INSTEAD OF FILING A REVISED RETURN, IT COULD NOT BE REJECTED OUT OF HAND JUST BECAUSE THE CLAIM WAS NOT MADE BY FILING A REVISED RETURN. (G) THAT SINCE, AS EXPLAINED AT GROUND NO. 1 HEREIN ABOVE, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO HIM TO UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10AA, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO REJECT THE APPELLANT'S GROUND ON REVISION OF THE AM OUNT OF THE CLAIM, ON THE GROUND THAT HE HAD ALREADY UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM IT SELF. 3. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPETENT'S APPEAL ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2013 JASUBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - CHALLENGING LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B AND 23 4C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS ONLY CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CHA LLENGED THE VERY LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER THOSE PROVISIONS AND, IN THE PECULIAR FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITS CASE, EVEN IF THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CAME TO BE ULTIMATELY SUSTAINED, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN BHARAT MACHIN ERY AND HARDWARE MART'S CASE (136 1TR 875) AND OF THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELH I BENCH IN HARYANA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION V. DCIT [252 ITR 34] WAS ATTRACTED AND THE LEVY DESERVED TO BE CANCELLED. 4. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEAREND CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEFORE HIM CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS U/S. 271(1)(C), AS BEING PREMATURE. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA , THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THERE BEING ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANT/JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HE OUGHT TO HAVE ORDERED FOR THEIR BEING DROPPED, THEREBY SAVING BOTH THE APPELLANT AND THE DEPARTMENT FROM LONG DRAWN UNNECESSARY LITIGATION. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND/OR ALTER THE GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF T HE APPEAL. 2. N O ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY RE QUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT IS MADE. N OTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 01/04/2014 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 15/05/2014 WHICH WAS SENT THRO UGH REGISTERED POST (A.D.) TO THE ASSESSEE (AS PER EVIDENCE ON RECORD) AND THE SAME WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES UNSERVED. IT IS TRANSPIRED FROM THE ORDER-SHEET THAT LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SO UGHT VARIOUS ADJOURNMENTS, I.E. ON 12/4/2013, 12/02/2014 & 01/04 /2014. FROM THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. HENCE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MAD HYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA VS. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI TRIBUNA L ITA NO.438/AHD/ 2013 JASUBHAI JEWELLERS PVT.LTD. VS. JT.CIT ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (PVT.) LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DE LHI) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15/05/2014 SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 71.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD 5. 8 #; ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, -8$ ,$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 15.5.14 (DICTATION-PAD 2-P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 15.5.14 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER