Sh. Gurpal Singh Brar, Mohali V. ITO, Mohali

MA 1/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9321 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.1 /CHD/2012 (IN ITA NO.1352/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) SHRI GURPAL SINGH BRAR, V ITO, WARD 5(4), # 2100, PHASE-X, MOHALI. MOHALI. PAN NO. AAUPB-5362N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI VED JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.10.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2011 IN ITA NO.1352 /CHD/2010 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 2. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DATED 12.12.2011 F ILED BY THE APPLICANT READS AS UNDER: MAY I MOST HUMBLY AND RESPECTFULLY PRAY THAT IT IS A MATTER OF CHANCE THAT I FELT VERY UNWELL AND I FOUND MYSELF I NCAPABLE TO MOVE AND TO PRESENT THIS CASE BEFORE THE HON'BLE TR IBUNAL. 1 MADE A REQUEST TO A SENIOR LAWYER SH. VED JAIN TO H ELP ME TO ASSIST THE HON'BLE BENCH ON MERITS. WE WERE ALWAYS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT HE HAS ATTENDED TO THE CASE BUT THI S BELIEF DID NOT PROVE TO BE TRUE AND HE DID NOT ATTEND TO THE P ROCEEDINGS OF THIS CASE WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO REJECTION OF THIS APPEAL. IT IS BECAUSE OF MY AILMENT WHICH PREVENTED ME TO ATTEND TO THE APPEAL VERY CAREFULLY ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND TH IS DATE OF 2 HEARING FURTHER MADE ME HELPLESS WHEN SH. VED JAIN DID NOT ATTEND TO THE APPEAL AND KEPT US UNDER THE WRONG IM PRESSION OF ATTENDING THE CASE. THIS ATTENTION HAS RESULTED INTO ATTENDING TO THE CASE IN MY AILMENT POSITION. I HOPE YOUR HON OUR WILL KINDLY APPRECIATE MY GENUINE 1 DIFFICULTY AND EXTEND THE DATE OF HEARING ON ANY DAY FOR ATTENDING TO THE APPEAL BEFO RE THE HON'BLE BENCH. SIR, THE DELAY OF ATTENDING THE CASE IS MY AILMENT AND WRONG IMPRESSION OF SH. VED JAIN AND NOTHING ELSE. HAD HE INFORMED ME ABOUT MY AILMENT, I WOULD HAVE ATTENDED TO THE PROCEEDINGS THROUGH SOME OTHER LAWYER. THIS FAC TUM HAS CAUSED GREAT INCONVENIENCE TO THE CLIENT SH. GURPAL SINGH BRAR FOR WHICH I REALLY FEEL VERY SORRY AND PRAY FOR REL IEF ON MERITS AND I ASSURE YOU THAT I WILL NEVER ATTEND TO THE CA SE IN ANY CASUAL MANNER. SARDAR GURPAL SINGH BRAR IS A SENI OR CITIZEN AND IS SUFFICIENTLY UPSET BECAUSE OF NON-ATTENDANCE OF THE CASE BY SH. VED JAIN WHO IS KNOWN TO BE A LEARNED MAN AND G AVE US HOPE OF ATTENDING TO THE CASE IN PERSON. I SHALL FE EL HIGHLY GRATEFUL TO THE HON'BLE BENCH FOR ANY FAULT ON PART OF SH. VED JAIN AND ON ME AND I PRAY THAT THIS INCONVENIENCE M AY KINDLY BE CONDONED AND THE CASE MAY PLEASE BE HEARD ON MER ITS LEST THE OLD MAN SH. GURPTAL SINGH BRAR IS UNNECESSARILY PUT TO INCONVENIENCE. I SHALL BE VERY GRATEFUL TO YOUR HONOUR FOR THIS AC T OF KINDNESS AND ACCOMMODATION AND HOPE THAT IN FUTURE I WILL BE MORE CAREFUL. 3. THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS MOVED B Y THE APPLICANT AND THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME REFLECTS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAVINDER BINDLISH WHO HAS CON TENDED THAT HE WAS UNWELL AND HE MADE A REQUEST TO THE SENIOR LAWYER S HRI VED JAIN TO ASSIST HIM IN THE CASE. THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE LEAR NED COUNSEL IS THAT AS SHRI VED JAIN DID NOT ATTEND TO THE APPEAL AND KEPT THEM UNDER WRONG IMPRESSION OF ATTENDING THE CASE, HAD MADE HIM I.E. THE COUNSEL HELPLESS. EVEN IN THE PRAYER CLAUSE THE LEARNED COUNSEL POINT S OUT THAT SIR, THE DELAY OF ATTENDING THE CASE IS MY AILMENT AND WRONG IMPRE SSION OF SH. VED JAIN AND NOTHING ELSE. HAD HE INFORMED ME ABOUT MY AILMENT, I WOULD HAVE ATTENDED TO THE PROCEEDINGS THROUGH SOME OTHER LAWYER. THIS FACTUM HAS CAUSED GREAT INCONVENIENCE TO THE CLIENT SH. GURPAL SINGH BRAR FOR WHICH I REALLY FEEL VERY SORR Y 3 AND PRAY FOR RELIEF ON MERITS AND I ASSURE YOU THAT I WILL NEVER ATTEND TO THE CASE IN ANY CASUAL MANNER . THE PRAYER IS BEING MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR CONDONING THE ABOVE SAID FOR HEARING THE CASE ON ME RITS ON MERITS LEST THE OLD MAN SH. GURPTAL SINGH BRAR IS UNNECESSARILY PUT TO INCONVENIENCE. 4. ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING SHRI VED JAIN A PPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND PUT FORWARD HIS CONTENTION. IT WAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BY SHRI VED JAIN, COUNSEL THAT THERE WAS A R EASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING. 5. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T THE COUNSEL SHRI VED JAIN WAS NOT HOLDING POWER OF ATTORNEY ON THE D ATE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS HEARD AND ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION MOVED BY HIM WAS NON-EST. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON H.K .THAKORE VS. ITO (1992) 44 TTJ (AHD) 222. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT IN VIEW THEREOF, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PRES ENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE SAME MERITS TO BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE CONTENTS OF PARA 2 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER REFLECTS T HAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 3.10.2012, ON WHI CH DATE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED BY BOTH THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE AND LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE. IT IS NOTED IN THE O RDER-SHEET OF ITA NO.1352/CHD/2010 THAT ON 3.10.2011 SHRI RAVINDER BI NDLISH HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SMT.JAISHREE SHARMA ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURN ED TO 4.10.2011 AT THE REQUEST OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND DATE WAS ANNOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT. ON 4.10.2011 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF SHRI RAVIND ER BINDLISH, WHO HAD PERSONALLY APPEARED ON THE EARLIER DATE OF HEAR ING AND HAD SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT FOR THE NEXT DATE I.E. 4.10.2011. THE APPLICATION FOR 4 ADJOURNMENT, HOWEVER, WAS MOVED ON 4.10.2011, WHICH WAS DATED 1.10.2011 ON BEHALF OF M/S VED JAIN & ASSOCIATES, C HARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THE SAID APPLICATION DATED 1.10.2011 T ALKS ABOUT THE APPEAL BEING FIXED ON 3.10.2011, WHICH IS TYPED; HOWEVER, AN INTERPOLATION BY PEN WAS MADE BY CHANGING THE DATE TO 4.10.2011. TH E PERUSAL OF THE RECORD REVEALED NO POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF M /S VED JAIN & ASSOCIATES WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHO IS A CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON RECORD IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED WHICH WERE CONSIDERED BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL AND THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE HAD ALS O PUT FORWARD HIS CONTENTION. THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED ON MERITS OF TH E ISSUES AND IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 ADDITION WAS UPHELD. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.4 THE ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND GROUND NOS. 5 TO 7 RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE WERE DISMISSED. THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEING GENERAL IN NATURE WERE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 7. THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS MIS-CONCEIVED AND NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE MATTER WA S ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED POWER OF ATTORNEY, WHO HAD HIMSELF SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT FOR AP PEARANCE ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING. HOWEVER, ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE SAID COUNSEL AND APPLICAT ION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED BY THE COUNSEL, NOT HOLDING ANY LETTER OF AUTHORITY. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION MOVED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE POWERS CONFERRED BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE LIMITED AND TH E ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED ON MERITS ARE NOT OPEN TO BE RE-HE ARD OR RE-ADJUDICATE, AS THE POWER OF REVIEW IS NOT AVAILABLE UNDER SECTI ON 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5 WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CAS E OF H.K.THAKORE VS. ITO (SUPRA). WE DISMISS THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH