M/s Rana Wine Traders, Kangra V. ITO, Palampur

MA 24/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0220 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.24 /CHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.61/CHD/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) M/S RANA WINE TRADERS, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICE R, JOGINDERNAGAR, H.Q. PALAMPUR. PALAMPUR. DISTT. KANGRA, H.P. PAN: (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.04.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2009 IN ITA NO. 61/C HD/2009 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT VIDE THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED EX-P ARTE BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 24.6.2009. THE NON-ATTENDANCE/NON -COMPLIANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING AS PER THE APPLICANT, WAS ON ACCOUN T OF THE FACT THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS NEVER SERVED WITH NOTICE. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE APPLICANT STRESSED THAT NO NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE APPLICANT. AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY T HE APPLICANT WAS REFERRED TO IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, DURING THE CO URSE OF HEARING, IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED AND SENT THROUGH REGISTERED AD, ACKNOWLEDGEM ENT OF WHICH WAS 2 SIGNED ON 19.5.2009 AND FIXED FOR HEARING ON 28.5.2 009. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE APPLICANT FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE ABO VE SAID. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T THE FACTS OF SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH REGISTERED AD ARE MENTION ED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF IN PARA 2. 5. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY T HE APPLICANT. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT WAS THAT THE MATTER WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE WITHOUT SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE APPLICANT. HOWE VER, THE PERUSAL OF THE APPEAL RECORDS REFLECTS THAT THE NOTICE OF HEAR ING WAS ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT AND WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE APPLICANT ON 19.5.2009 A LONGWITH SIGNATURE IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTUM OF NOTICE BEING SE NT THROUGH REGISTERED AD AND CONSEQUENT SERVICE UPON THE APPLICANT IS ALS O MENTIONED IN PARA 2 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT WAS DECIDED ON MERITS. THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT A NY ERROR IN THE SAID DECISION. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE APPLICANT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R. SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 16 TH APRIL, 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3