M/s Ram Dass Kapoor Transport, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

MA 26/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0449 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: I S NAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

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 MA NO. 26/CHD/2013 IN ITA NO.218/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S RAM DASS KAPOOR TRANSPORT, V ACIT, C-V, G.T.ROAD, MILLER GANJ, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN : AAEFR-4453N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.MUKHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI I.S.NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 17.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.06.2013 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWNA, JM THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS MOVED BY T HE APPLICANT FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.21 8/CHD/2011 DATED 13.12.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT WAS AGAINST THE O RDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA 218/CHD/2011 ORDER DATED 13.12.2012 WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED ON MERITS, EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE. THE PLEA RAISED BY THE APPLICANT IN THIS REGARD IS AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPEAL WAS FILED BY TH E APPELLANT AND WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THIS HON'BLE BENCH ON 05.12.2012. 2. THAT THE COUNSEL WAS NOT WELL SINCE SUFFERING FR OM FEVER AND THEREFORE APPLICATION PRAYING FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS F ILED HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE BENCH REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR ADJO URNMENT ON THE GROUND OF REPEATED ADJOURNMENTS ON THRE E DATES I.E., 07.04.2011, 25.04,2011 AND 11.07.2011. 3. THAT IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT ON 07.04.201 1, THE COUNSEL WAS APPOINTED AND FILED ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY WHILE ON 25.04.2011 ADJOURNMENT WAS BY THE BENCH AS THERE WA S NO TIME SINCE IT WAS INVOLVED IN OTHER CASES WHILE ON 11.0 7.2011 THE 2 ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT BY THE COUNSEL AS HE WAS TO APPEAR BEFORE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP. 3. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER-SHEET ENTRIES, IT TRANSPIRES THAT APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 07.04.2011 WHEN REQUEST WA S MADE BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 25. 04.2011. AGAIN AT THE REQUEST OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 11.07.2011 AND THEREAFTER TO 11.08.2011. THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON 11.08.2011 AND THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 09.07.2012, ON WHICH DATE AGAIN THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 30.08.2012 A ND FURTHER TO 12.09.2012. ON BOTH THE DATES, THE MATTER WAS REPR ESENTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADJOURNMENT WAS GIVEN IN T HE PRESENCE OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ON 12.09.2012, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 05.12.2012, ON WHICH DA TE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED A FTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(1)(II I) OF THE ACT AND THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD DELIBERATED UPON EACH OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE INTEREST-FREE AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. PART OF THE ISSUE WAS DECID ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THE MATTER WAS RES TORED BACK TO THE AO FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF OTHER TWO ADVANCES TO M/S DISK INDIA PVT. LTD. AND M/S SONAL FABRICATORS PVT. LTD., THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE/DOCUMENT IN SUPP ORT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD UPHEL D THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(1)(III) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER RESTRIC TED THE SAME TO THE PERIOD SAID AMOUNTS WERE OUTSTANDING FOR. THE CIT(APPEALS ) HAD FURTHER DEALT WITH THE ADVANCE MADE TO M/S PUNJAB MACHINERY WORKS PVT. LTD. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD ALLOWED THE RELIEF IN RESPECT OF O PENING BALANCE OF RS.9,30,000/- IN THE SAID ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE 3 THAT THE ADVANCES WERE MADE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES, PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT( APPEALS) ON THE BALANCE ADVANCE MADE TO M/S PUNJAB MACHINERY WORKS P.LTD. SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF DEBIT BALANCES IN THE ACCOUNT OF VICKY CARRIERS AND RAJIV KAPOOR TRANSPORT. THE TRIBUNAL, IN VIEW OF TH E FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND BECAUSE OF CONSIDERATION OF THE TO TAL FACTS BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGES 31, 32, 49 AND 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK, UPHELD THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND DISMISSED GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE. 4. VIDE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASS ESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL POINTING OUT THAT CORR ECT FACTS WERE NOT PROVIDED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO BY THE T RIBUNAL. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT, I T IS MENTIONED THAT ALSO A BRIEF SYNOPSIS WAS PREPARED ALONGWITH VARIOU S JUDGMENTS BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS HEREBY ANNEXED FOR WHICH NO OPPO RTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT AS THE ADJOURNMENT WAS DENIED THOUGH THERE BEING REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH WILL CLARIFY THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF D ISALLOWANCE BY LOWER AUTHORITIES IS BASELESS. THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION REFLECT NO SUCH SYNOPSIS HAVING BEEN AN NEXED WITH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE PRESEN T MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED ON MERITS OF T HE CASE. 5. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF BHAWARLAL C.BAFNA V ACIT (2002) 257 ITR 687 (MAD) THAT ADJOURNMENTS ARE NOT MATTER OF RIGHT AND ONCE MANY ADJOURNMENTS ARE TAKEN, THE TRIBUNAL COULD TAKE NOTE OF 4 CONDUCT OF THE PARTY AND REFUSE THE ADJOURNMENT IN ITS DISCRETION. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN REFUSING TO GRANT FURTHER ADJOURNMENT AS THE MATTER HAD BEEN ADJOURNED ON SEV ERAL OCCASIONS AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVESAID RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, WE FIND NO M ERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 13.12.201 2 HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER CONSIDE RING THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH JUNE,2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 10 TH JUNE,2013. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH.