Bloom Decor Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT., Ahmedabad Circle-1, Ahmedabad

MA 121/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4785 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHAN MEHTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND N. S. SAINI, AM ) M. A. NO.121 AND 122/AHD/2010 (IN C. O. NOS. 72 AND 73/AHD/2006 - A. Y.: 2002-03 AND 2003-04) BLOOM DCOR PVT. LTD., 2 ND FLOOR, SUMEL, OPP. GNFC INFO TOWER, S. G. HIGHWAY, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD VS THE D. C. I. T., CIRCLE-1, 3 RD FLOOR, JITENDRA CHAMBER, R. B. I. LANE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD PA NO. AAACB 6221 B (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI KISHAN MEHTA, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RECALLING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 01-04-2010 WHEREBY BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED IN DEFAULT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES. 3. THE RECORDS SHOW THAT BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 01-04-2010. NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST. THE A/D CARD DULY SERVED U PON THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT WAS NOTED IN THE ORDER DATE D 01-04-2010 BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INTIMATED THE DEFECT S IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS AS SEVERAL DOCUMENTS IN THE CROSS OBJECT IONS WERE NOT FILED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECTIFY THE DEFECTS IN THE CRO SS OBJECTIONS. THE NOTICE OF THE REGISTRY WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE C ROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATE D 01-04-2010. MA NO.121 AND 122/AHD/2010 (IN C. O. NO. 72 AND 73/AHD/2007) BLOOM DCOR PVT. LTD. VS DCIT CIR 1, AHMEDABAD 2 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TENDERED UN CONDITIONAL APOLOGY FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE WAS OUT OF AHMEDABAD ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND THAT REQUEST F OR ADJOURNMENT WAS WRONGLY FORWARDED FOR BENCH B INSTEAD OF BENCH A WHERE THE MATTER WAS LISTED FOR HEARING. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE C ONCERN PERSON WHO WAS TO APPEAR ALSO FELL ILL AND COULD NOT ATTEND HE ARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE UNDE R TOOK TO REMOVE ALL THE DEFECTS IN CASE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ON MERIT. ON THE OTHER HAND, L EARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING EARLIER AND EVEN ON EARLIER OCCASION WHENEVER MATTER WAS TAKEN UP FOR H EARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REMAINED OUT OF AHMEDABAD. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE DEFECTS IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN REMOVED, THEREFORE, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS MAY BE DISMI SSED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED DR THAT EVEN ON EARLIER OCCASIONS WHENEVER THE MATTER WAS T AKEN UP FOR HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REMAINED OUTSI DE AHMEDABAD. NO REASON HAS BEEN EXPLAINED WHY THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING. THE RECORD S ALSO REVEALS THAT REGISTRY ISSUED DEFECT MEMO TO THE ASSESSEE TO REMO VE THE DEFECTS IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN RECTIFI ED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS THAT APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED BEFORE B BENCH, BUT NOBODY APPEARED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NO EVIDENCE IS ALSO FILED AS TO WHO WAS THE CONCERN PE RSON WAS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND NO EVIDENCE FOR HIS ALLEGED ILLNESS IS ALSO FILED. THEREFORE, VAGUE AVERMENTS ARE CONTAINED IN THE MIS C. APPLICATIONS AND THE DEFECTS HAVE NOT BEEN REMOVED IN THE CROSS OBJE CTIONS. HOWEVER, WE MAY NOTE THAT THE CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN DE CIDED ON MERITS AND MA NO.121 AND 122/AHD/2010 (IN C. O. NO. 72 AND 73/AHD/2007) BLOOM DCOR PVT. LTD. VS DCIT CIR 1, AHMEDABAD 3 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN BEFORE US TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS, THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THE CROSS OBJECTIONS COULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO COST TO THE OTHER SIDE. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE RECALL OUR EARLIER ORDER DATE D 01-04-2010 AND RESTORE THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THEIR ORIGINAL NUMBER SUBJECT TO COST OF RS.3,000/- IN EACH MISC. APPLICATION. TH E ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS IN THE CROSS OBJECTI ONS WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF ORDER. THE COST SHALL BE PAID TO T HE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF ORDER. THE OFFICE IS DIRECTED TO FIX BOTH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FOR HEARING ON MERIT ON 28-10- 2010 FOR WHICH NO SEPARATE NOTICE WILL BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO COST ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27-08-2010 SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 27-08-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD