M/s Arisudana Industries Ltd., Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

MA 2/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0168 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.2 /CHD/2012 (IN ITA NO.745/CHD/2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) M/S ARISUDANA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE V, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AABCA2449K (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI RAJIV SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.04.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2011 IN ITA NO. 745 /CHD/2011 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH WAS DECIDED FO LLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. 2. THE PLEA OF THE APPLICANT WAS THAT THE ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT BY REJECTING THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPOR TUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE CASE. THUS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.9.2011 WAS AGAINST THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND A DVERSELY AFFECTS THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPL ICANT SEEKS THE RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS GROUND. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE APPLICANT ADMITTED THAT APPEARANCE WAS PUT IN BY HIMSELF AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED ON MERI TS OF THE CASE BY 2 APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT [286 ITR 1 (P&H]. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HA ND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY THE COUNSEL APPEARING I N THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE ISSUE BEING COVERED WAS HEARD. 5. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUN AL HAD DECIDED THE APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 19.9.2011 WHERE SHRI RAJEE V SHARMA PUT IN APPEARANCE. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPLICANT HAD MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS REFUSED IN VIEW OF THE ISSUE BEING COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN A BHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL IS GOVERNED BY THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT HAVING BEEN REPRESENTED BY A COUNSEL AND THE ISSUE IN TURN BEING COVERED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE PU NJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT,, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE SA ID TO BE AGAINST THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THUS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION MOVED BY THE APPLICANT IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE APPLICANT IS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF APRIL, 2013. SD/- SD/ - (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 3 RD APRIL, 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3