Vision Corporation Ltd., Mumbai V. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Surendranagar

MA 16/RJT/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1017 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU N AL : RAJKOT BENCH : RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARM A JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA AM M. A . NO . 16 /RJ T/2013 (ARIS I N G OUT OF ORDER IN ITA NO. 48 /RJT/201 3 ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 VISION CORPORATION LTD. V . JCIT, CIRCLE - 1, S URENDRANAGAR 2/44, 2 ND FLOOR, CITY MALL NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI PAN: AABCV 2623 G DATE OF HEARING : 26 .0 7 .2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 . 0 9 . 2013 FOR THE APPLICANT - ASSESSEE: SHRI D M RINDANI, CA FOR THE R EVENUE : SHRI M K SINGH, DR / ORDER D. K. SRIVASTAVA : THE M ISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON 15 .0 4 .201 3 BY WHICH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA NO.48/RJT/2013 FOR THE A SSESSMEN T Y EAR 2009 - 10 WAS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE NOW SUBMITS THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE RE CALLED AND ITS APPEAL SHOULD BE RE - FIXED FOR HEARING FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION , WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 1. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OFF EX - PARTE BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL BY ITS ORDER DATED 15.04.2013 (RECEIVED BY US ON 20.04.2013). THE APPELLANT ABOVE NAMED BEG TO PRESENT THIS APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF CERTAIN MISTAKE WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE SAID ORDER. 2. THE ABOVE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX - PARTY AND THE SAME REQUIRED TO BE MODIFIED DUE TO FOLLOWING FACTS AND GROUNDS: ( A ) THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE COMPANY IS AT SURENDRANAGAR. HOWEVER OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, ALL OPERATIONS OF THE COMPANY AND WORKING OF THE COMPANY SHIFTED TO MUMBAI AND IS PRESENTLY ENTIRELY DONE THROUGH CORPORATE OFFICE AT MUMBAI. OUR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE CARRIED ON AT SURENDRANAGAR, INCOME TAX OFFICE. HONBLE CIT(A) PROCEEDINGS ARE CARRIED AT AHMEDABAD AND ITAT PRO CEEDINGS ARE BEING CARRIED OUT AT RAJKOT. TO MANAGE INCOME TAX 2 MA 16 - RJT - 2013 VISION CORPORATION LTD PROCEDURES/PROCEEDINGS AT DIFFERENT PLACES IS VERY DIFFICULT. OUR APPLICATION TO TRANSFER CASES TO MUMBAI IT OFFICES IS PENDING SINCE LONG. ( B ) WE HAVE HIRED SERVICES OF SURENDRANAGAR BASED CHARTE RED ACCOUNTANTS FOR ASSESSMENT AND FIRST APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. WE HAD APPOINTED M/S. DIPAK P SHAH & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS FOR ASSESSMENT AND FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS [CIT(A)]. ( C ) WE WERE IN PROCESS TO APPOINT SOME OTHER CA/ADVOCATE FROM RAJKOT FOR APPE ARANCE WITH ITAT MATTER. HOWEVER AT LAST MOMENT, WE WERE INFORMED THAT DUE TO SOME REASONS (NOT KNOWN TO US) RAJKOT BASED ITAT PRACTITIONERS ARE NOT APPEARING AT ITAT, RAJKOT. ( D ) PERSONAL PRESENCE BY US WAS NOT POSSIBLE HENCE, WE PUT A TELEGRAM FOR ADJOURNME NT IN OUR CASE ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 11.04.2013. COPY OF RECEIPT OF TELEGRAM IS ATTACHED HEREWITH. KINDLY APPRECIATE THAT 11.04.2013 WAS THE FIRST HEARING IN OUR CASE. DATE OF FILLING OF APPROVAL WAS 20.02.2013. ( E ) HOWEVER, THE HONORABLE ITAT WITHOUT T AKING NOTE OF OUR TELEGRAM FOR ADJOURNMENT PASSED AN EX - PARTE ORDER IN FIRST HEARING ITSELF. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN STATING THAT NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED IN PARA 2 AND 5 OF THE ORDER. THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CO NSIDERED BEFORE PRONOUNCING ORDER ON 15.04.2013. ( F ) AS REGARDS SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE IT ACT, IT WAS APPARENT ON RECORD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPTED INCOME AT ALL AND AS SUCH THERE CAN BE NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE IT ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT ON FACTS OF THE CASE, SEC. 14A HAS NO APPLICATION AT ALL. THIS MISTAKE OF FACT AND LAW HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. ( G ) AS OUR APPEAL IS DISMISSED, GREAT HARDSHIP HAS BEE N CAUSED TO US. 3 MA 16 - RJT - 2013 VISION CORPORATION LTD 3. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER IS PASSED ON 15.04.2013 WITHOUT CONSIDERING OUR ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION MADE THROUGH TELEGRAM ON 11.04.2013 AND FURTHER DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE IT ACT WAS UPHELD WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SEC 14 A OF THE IT ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED AS THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME AT ALL. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE OMISSIONS CONSTITUTES MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 4. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO SUITABLE AMEND ITS ORDER BY RECALLING ORDER AND REFIXING APPEAL AND THEREBY GRANT PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH OUR CASE. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. NOTICE FIXING THE APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.48/RJT/2013 FOR HEARING ON 11.04.2013 WAS ISSUED BY THIS TRIBUNAL AS EARLY AS ON 28 .02.2013 . THE SAID NOTICE WAS SENT AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL MEMO. THE NOTICE WAS DULY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS EVIDENT FROM THE AD SLIP RECEIVED BACK FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. THE AFORESAID AD SLIP CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE NOT ICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE MORE THAN A MONTH BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. IT WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE PROPER ARRANGEMENTS. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO MAKE PROPER ARRANGEMENTS WELL IN TIME FOR PURSUING THE APPEAL, IT IS THE ASSESS EE - COMPANY WH ICH HAS TO BLAME HIMSELF. INACTION, LATCHES, INORDINATE DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE ETC. , CANNOT BE CONST RUED AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT ENTERING APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. TELEGRAM, WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE SENT ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF APPEAL FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT, WAS ACTUALLY SENT BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE END OF THE DAY ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. HERE TOO THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CAREFUL ENOUGH TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT IN TIME. 4. OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE MA ARE MATTERS OF ARGUMENT, WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS U/S 254(2). ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AT THAT TIME. THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON MERIT CANNOT SUBSEQUENTLY BE REVIEWED ON THE BASIS OF ARGUMENTS/SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE MA. 4 MA 16 - RJT - 2013 VISION CORPORATION LTD 5. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, T HE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13 . 0 9 . 201 3 SD/ - SD/ - (T. K. SHARMA) ( D. K. SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJKOT : 13 . 0 9 . 2013 * BT T HRA A / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT - VISION CORPORATION LTD., 2/44, 2 ND FLOOR, CITY MALL, NEW LINK R OAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI 2 RESPONDENT JCIT, CIRCLE - 1, SURENDRANAGAR 3 . CONCERNED CIT - V, AHMEDABAD 4 . CIT (A ) - XVI, AHMEDABAD 5 . DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, RAJKOT