Smt.Gurmeet Kuar, NIMBAHERA V. ITO, CHITTORGARH

MA 15/JODH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8715 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PA A
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KOTHARI A R G R KOKANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.15/JU/2010 (IN ITA NO.655/JU/2008) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SMT. GURMEET KAUR , VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NIMBAHERA, WAD 1, CHITTORGRH. CHITTORGARH (PAN: ABYPA 7590 A). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : G.R. KOKANI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 06.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 06.07.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 04.09.2009 PASSED IN DE PARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO. 655/AGRA/2008. 2. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT DE SPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH DEPARTMENT EFFECTED ON THE ASSESSEE (EVIDENCE ON RECORD), M.A. NO.15/JU/2010 . 2 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EXPARTE IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE HAD RAISED TWO GROUNDS IN DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. AS REGARDS THE FIRST GROUND CH ALLENGING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.12,33,329/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS U/S. 68, THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR RECONSIDERATION. AS REGARDS THE OTHER ISSUE OF CASH CREDIT OF RS.1,00,0 00/-, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS BEEN ALLOWED. 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS FIXED BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL ON 03.09.2009 AND THE DEPARTMENT HAD SERVED THE NOTICE UPON THE A SSESSEE FOR THE DATE OF HEARING. THE SERVICE REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN PERSONALLY SERVED, WHICH FACT IS NO T DISPUTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE OTHER APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FIXED ON 22.09.2009, THEREFORE, THERE WAS A BONA FIDE CONFUSION THAT THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN FIXED ON 22.09.2 009. THEREFORE, NO COMPLIANCE COULD BE MADE ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 03.09.2009. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD BRIN G MORE FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WI TH REGARD TO THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- COULD HAV E BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR M.A. NO.15/JU/2010 . 3 OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT PROPER S ERVICE OF NOTICE WAS MADE, HENCE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY CONFUSION AND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISS ED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING OF APPEAL FOR 03.09.2009 WAS PERSONALLY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE SERVICE REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE WA S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.07.2009, I.E., MORE THAN ONE MONTH B EFORE THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. IF OTHER APPEALS WERE F IXED ON 22.09.2009, SUFFICIENT TIME WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO VERIFY THIS FACT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE SUFFICIENT TIME WAS W ITH THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO CONFUSION ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING AN D THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEAR ING COULD NOT BE DEEMED AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY DID NOT APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 03.09.2009. THEREFORE, THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RECALLING OF THE OR DER CANNOT BE ACCEDED TO. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS WISDOM ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW H AS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE M.A. NO.15/JU/2010 . 4 FACTS AND PASSED THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2009. THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.07.2012. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AKS/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR