M/s. Jindal Fashion, Surat V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Surat

MA 10/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3106 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NOS. 100/AHD/2012 & 10/AHD/2013 (ARISING OUT OF CO NO.226/AHD/2007 IN ITA NO. 2580/ AHD/2007 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 JINDAL FASHION, 581, ADARSH MARKET, WARD NO.4-B, BEGUMPURA, SURAT PAN : AACFJ 8318 A VS ITO, WARD 5 (2), SURAT MA NOS. 99/AHD/2012 & 09/AHD/2013 (ARISING OUT OF CO NO. & 225/AHD/2007 IN ITA NO. 25 79/AHD/2007) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 JINDAL CREATION, 581, ADARSH MARKET, WARD NO.4-B, BEGUMPURA, SURAT PAN : AACFJ 0379 F VS ITO, WARD 5 (2), SURAT / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE(S) BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR. DR. !'/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 05.06.2015 #$% !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.06.2015 &' &' &' &'/ // / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: THESE ARE THE FOUR MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILE D BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.08.2010 PASSED IN ITA NOS. 2579 TO 2582/AHD/2007 & CO NOS. 225 TO 228/AHD/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. ALL THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY I.E., 05.06.2015; HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NEITHER THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. FROM THE ORDER SHEET, WE FIND THAT THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17.05.20 12 AND WERE FIXED FOR HEARING FOR THE MA NOS.100/AHD/2012 & 10/AHD/2013 MA NOS.99/AHD/2012 & 09/AHD/2013 JINDAL FASHION & JINDAL CREATION ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 - 2 - FIRST TIME ON 06.07.2012. THEREAFTER, HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TIME AND AGAIN, MOSTLY ON ACCOUNT OF EITHER THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEES COUNSEL OR AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT PRO PER TO DECIDE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. SINCE IN AL L THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS COMMON REQUESTS HAVE BEEN MADE AND THE FACTS OF ALL THE FOUR CASES ARE ALSO MORE OR LESS IDENTICAL, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO CONSIDER HEREI N BELOW THE FACTS IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 100/AHD/2012 I.E, IN THE CASE OF JI NDAL FASHION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 . THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO CROSS OBJECTION NO. 226/AHD/2007 WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY T HE ITAT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E AND ALSO PERUSED THE COMMON ORDER OF THE ITAT PASSED IN ALL THE FOUR APP EALS. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT IN OUR RECORD IN CROSS OBJECT ION NO. 100/AHD/2012, THERE IS NO APPLICATION FOR THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WHICH IS CLA IMED TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED AS UNDER: 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING, THE MAIN DISCUSSION CENTERED ROUND THE GROUNDS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND RELATED CROSS O BJECTION WITH ONLY A PASSING DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. AS PER ORD ER, NOTHING IS MENTIONED THEREON. [ 4. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT EVEN AS PER A SSESSEES CONTENTION THE MAIN DISCUSSION CENTERED AROUND THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS THE RELATED GROUND IN THE CROSS OBJECTION. WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, THERE WAS ONLY A PASSING DISCUSSION. FROM THE ORDER OF ITAT DATED 31.08.2010, IN ITA NO. 2580/AHD/2007 AND CO NO. 226/AHD/2007, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY IN TH E ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE I.E, M/S JINDAL FASHION SURRENDERED THE SUM OF RS. 30 LACS FOR EXCESS STOCK AND RS. 4 LACS FOR EXCESS CASH. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE INCOME AS WAS SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE TH E ADDITION OF RS.37,81,757/- IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE I.E, JINDAL FASHION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. THE SAME WAS MA NOS.100/AHD/2012 & 10/AHD/2013 MA NOS.99/AHD/2012 & 09/AHD/2013 JINDAL FASHION & JINDAL CREATION ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 - 3 - RESTRICTED TO RS.9,21,538/- BY THE CIT (A). THE REV ENUE WAS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE CIT(A), WHILE THE ASSESSEE IN THE CR OSS OBJECTIONS HAD CHALLENGED THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A). IN THE CROSS OBJE CTION, THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF SURVEY PROCEED INGS. THE SECOND GROUND WAS AGAINST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE THIRD GROUND WAS AGAINST THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C. THE ITAT, AFTER THE CONSI DERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE BOTH THE SIDES, DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL AND THE GROUN D NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION WHICH WAS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION SUSTAIN ED BY THE CIT(A). IN PARAGRAPH 9, THE ITAT HAS MENTIONED THAT GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASS ESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. FROM THE ABOVE, THE CLEAR INDICATION IS THAT THE ONLY ARGUMENT FROM BOT H THE SIDE WAS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION PARTLY REDUCED BY THE CIT(A). THERE WAS NO OTHER GROUND IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND IN THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION, THOUG H THERE WERE OTHER GROUNDS WHICH WERE NOT PRESSED. WHEN THE REGULAR GROUNDS RAISED I N THE CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE NOT PRESSED EXCEPT GROUND NO. 2 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE QUESTION OF PRESSING OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND COULD NOT HAVE AROSE. MOREOVER, O N THE RECORD OF THE ITAT IN THE FOLDER OF CROSS OBJECTION THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL GR OUND, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ALONGWI TH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS. HOWEVER, DESPITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED BY THE ITAT TO THE ASSESSEE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR IF APPEARED, SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. EVEN IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ONLY ASSERTION BY TH E ASSESSEE IS THAT THERE WAS A PASSING DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. THERE CAN NOT BE A PASSING DISCUSSION ON ANY GROUND, EXCEPT WHEN THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SAYS THA T THE GROUND IS NOT PRESSED, BECAUSE, IF THE GROUND IS TO BE ARGUED, THEN IT IS TO BE ARGUED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND THERE CANNOT BE A PASSING DISCUSSION IN RESPECT OF SUCH GROUND. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ADDITIONAL GROUND, IF ANY, WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THEREFORE, NOW IN THE MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THAT THERE IS APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER O F THE ITAT. WE, THEREFORE, REJECT THE ASSESSEES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. MA NOS.100/AHD/2012 & 10/AHD/2013 MA NOS.99/AHD/2012 & 09/AHD/2013 JINDAL FASHION & JINDAL CREATION ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 - 4 - 5. THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF OTHER THREE MISCELLANEO US APPLICATIONS ARE ALSO IDENTICAL; THEREFORE, FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION ABOVE IN RES PECT OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.100/AHD/2012, OTHER THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT IONS ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19 TH JUNE, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE - PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/06/2015 BIJU T., PS &' ( )&(% &' ( )&(% &' ( )&(% &' ( )&(% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ** + / CONCERNED CIT 4. + ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. (./ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /12 3 / GUARD FILE. &' &' &' &' / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 4 44 4/ // / *5 *5 *5 *5 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD