M/S Partha Multitrade India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, , Aurangabad

MA 27/PUN/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0479 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No. A.Y. Name of Applicant Name of Respondent/Revenue M.A.Nos.27 to 30/PUN/2024 Arising out of ITA Nos.682 to 685/PUN/2022 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 & 2013-14 M/s. Parth Multitrade India Pvt. Ltd., (earlier known as Swift Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.1/5, A.S. Yadav Chawl Pada, Near Mahakali Mandir, Dahisar, Mumbai – 400 068 PAN : AALCS3668L DCIT, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These Miscellaneous Applications are filed by the applicant seeking recall of the ex parte order dated 30.11.2023 passed by this Tribunal in appeals ITA. Nos. 682 to 685/PUN/2022 on the ground that the appellant could not cause appearance when the matter was called on 12.10.2023 for the reason that the Authorized Representative could not attend the hearing for personal reasons. It is submitted that the applicant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause for non- appearance before the Tribunal when the matter was called on. Therefore, the appeals be recalled in the interest of justice and be re- heard on merit. As evident from the Miscellaneous applications filed by the applicant itself, these appeals were adjourned seventeen (17) times from hearing of appeals. The adjournment petition moved on the date of hearing was disposed of by this Tribunal by giving findings on the Assessee by : Shri Sashank Dundu, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 12.07.2024 Date of pronouncement : 05.08.2024 M.A.Nos.27 to 30/PUN/2024 Partha Multitrade India Pvt. Ltd., 2 merits of the adjournment petition vide para 9 of the order. The Tribunal in Para 9 recorded a finding that appellant had failed to show the sufficient and reasonable cause for non-appearance. Then, the Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the appeals on merit by following the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO 43 ITR 387, the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Jagannath Bawri Vs. CIT 234 ITR 464 and the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO Vs. Ch. Atchaiah 218 ITR 239 (SC). 2. We heard the rival submissions and carefully examined the facts of the case. We find the applicant vide these Miscellaneous Applications is seeking recall of the order in terms of Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules 1963 hereinafter also called ‘Rules’. The provisions of ‘Rule 24’ specifically lays down that if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for non- appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing, the Tribunal shall set-aside the ex parte order and restore the appeal. The provisions of ‘Rule 24’ are in pari materia with Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Courts while interpreting the provisions of Order 9 of Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code had time and again laid down that the approach of the courts or Tribunal in deciding whether there was sufficient cause or not, is expected to consider whether or not the party was really interested to appear on the date fixed for the case; if he honestly intended to remain present and was not guilty of misconduct or gross negligence he should be given a chance. Reference can be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rainbow Agri Industries Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Others 266 ITR 38. 3. In the background of above legal position, we proceed to examine the facts of the present case to determine whether there is sufficient and M.A.Nos.27 to 30/PUN/2024 Partha Multitrade India Pvt. Ltd., 3 reasonable cause for non-appearance. The affidavit was filed by one Mr. Anand Ramkishanji Partani, Chartered Accountant based at Aurangabad, whose Power of Attorney is on the record to represent the appeals. From the averments made in the affidavit, it is clear that the matter was adjourned seventeen (17) times on earlier occasions, mostly at the request of the applicant. Except on one occasions, he did not represent the matter before the Tribunal. On mere perusal of the averments, it is clear that the reasons given on many occasions was that he was not aware of the next date of hearing. It is only on two occasions, i.e. on 09.10.2023 and 10.10.2023 he stated that he could not attend the hearing as his wife was not keeping well. The reason that he was unaware of the next date of hearing cannot be accepted for the reason that the entries of order sheet were uploaded on the website on the very same day. As regards the reason of illness of wife of the Authorized Representative, no Medical Certificate was furnished. The inconvenience to the AR to represent the matter does not constitute a valid reason for adjourning of the hearing especially involving several connected matters in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Siromani Tripathi & Ors. v. State of U.P & others in Civil Appeal Nos.9142 to 9144/2010, dated 07-02-2019. Moreover, the said Mr. Anand Ramkishanji Partani, CA also never represented the matter even during the hearing of the present Miscellaneous Applications. Keeping in view the fact that the AR never represented the matter, the affidavit furnished by him had no sanctity. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the affidavit filed by the said Mr. Anand Ramkishanji Partani, CA is only with the intention to save the assessee from the consequence flowing from the non- appearance. It is merely a make belief story which cannot be accepted. These facts only goes to demonstrate that the applicant had no intention M.A.Nos.27 to 30/PUN/2024 Partha Multitrade India Pvt. Ltd., 4 or not really interested to appear to represent the matter on the dates fixed for hearing of the appeals. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that there was no sufficient and reasonable for non-appearance when the matter was fixed on the dates of hearing. 4. There is yet another reason as to why we are not inclined to recall the matter, as it would be a mere useless formality contributing to docket explosion of the Tribunal. The matter was disposed of on merits, even if the matters are recalled, the outcome of the appeals would remain the same, as the order passed by the CIT(A) is patently wrong as he has deleted the addition, supposedly to have been made on protective basis, without discussing in whose hands substantive addition is required to be made. In any event, it is not the case of the applicant that there are mistakes apparent from record in the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that these are not fit cases to grant any relief in terms of Rule 24 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 and the Miscellaneous Applications are devoid of any merit. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the applicant stand dismissed. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the applicant are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 05 th day of August, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; दनांक / Dated : 05 th August, 2024 Satish M.A.Nos.27 to 30/PUN/2024 Partha Multitrade India Pvt. Ltd., 5 आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” ब च, पुणे / DR, ITAT,”B” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.