M/s. Swastik Industries, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(4), Surat

MA 209/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9912 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SHANKAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , .!' # , $% $ & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.209/AHD/2011 (IN ./ IN I.T.A. NO.247/AHD/2011) ( ' ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SWASTIK INDUSTRIES 157, GIDC PANDESARA SURAT ' / VS. THE ITO WARD-6(4) SURAT ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAKFS 0511 J ( / APPLICANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPLICANT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.SHANKAR, SR.D.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 15/02/2013 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/2/13 $% / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01/12/2011 AGAINST AN EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23/09/2011. THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION STATES AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER DATED 23/09/2011 WAS PASSED BY HONB LE ITAT BENCH SMC AND WAS RECEIVED ON 19/10/2011 WHEREIN THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT NOBODY ATTENDED ON 23/09/2011. 2. THE APPELLANT URGES THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS SENT TO THE LOCAL PERSON WHO DID NOT FILE THE SAME AS AC CORDING TO HIM NO HEARING TOOK PLACE ON THIS DATE. MA NO.209/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.247/AHD/2011) SWASTIK INDUSTRIES VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - 3. THE APPELLANT FURTHER URGES THAT HE CAME TO KN OW ABOUT SOME SPECIAL BENCH ON ISSUE OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF T HE ACT AND, THEREFORE, HE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE IMPRESSION T HAT THE HEARING COULD BE ADJOURNED. 2. WE HAVE NOTED THAT IN THE PAST ON SEVERAL OCCA SIONS THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT NO ONE HAS ATTENDED FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPLICANT. AS PER THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE ORDER- SHEET, THE DATES OF HEARING WERE FIXED WERE 10/02/1 2, 30/4/12, 18.5.12, 13.7.12, 7.9.12, 16.11.12, 21.12.12 & 15.2.13. AS PER THE ORDER-SHEET, ON FEW OCCASIONS, IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED BY THE B ENCH THAT THE APPLICANT MUST BE COMMUNICATED THAT A LAST CHANCE W AS GIVEN FOR HEARING. EVEN AFTER PROVIDING NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES, THE A PPLICANT HAS NOT BOTHERED TO APPEAR ONCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. FURTH ER, WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BEARING ITA NO.247/AHD/2 011 (A.Y. 2005-06) WAS BELATEDLY FILED AND THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR CO NDONATION OF DELAY AS NONE APPEARED EVEN ON THAT OCCASION OF HEARING, HEN CE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER;- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A)-IV, SURAT DATED 3.7.2008 CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION IN RESPECT OF JOB CHARGES U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 2. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS LATE BY TWO YEARS AND 142 DAYS. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, I .E. ON 8-9-2011, AS NOTED IN THE ORDER-SHEET, IT WAS TELEPHONICALLY INFORMED TO ASSESSEES COUNSEL, SHRI K.K.SHAH TO APPEAR ON THE MATTER ON 23-9-2011, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OR INTIMATED REASON FOR NON-APPEARANCE IN THE MATTER. EVEN IN T HE CONDONATION MA NO.209/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.247/AHD/2011) SWASTIK INDUSTRIES VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - OF DELAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE REAS ON FOR THE DELAY IS VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS AND NOT SPEAK OF THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT I S INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL. THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE O F MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD. 38 ITD 320, WE DISMISS APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LITIGANT IS NOT INTERESTED AT ALL TO PURSUE HIS MAT TER SERIOUSLY BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE WE ARE LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO DISMISS THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION AS WELL FOR WANT OF PROSECUT ION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- ( &.'!( ')# ) ( ' ' * ) $ +, $ ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( MUKU L KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 21/ 02 /2013 -.., .,../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS $* + ,-. /$.( / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / 01 2 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 2 () / THE CIT(A)-IV, SURAT 5. 567 ,,01, 01#, ('$/$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 789 : / GUARD FILE. $*' / BY ORDER, 5 , //TRUE COPY// 0/ 1 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD