Parikh Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT., Circle-5, Ahmedabad

MA 29/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4317 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C. AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 29/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF CO. NO. 292/AHD/2003 AND ITA NO.428/AHD/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1993-1994 M/S. PARIKH ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., NO.442, GIDC, ODHAV, NEW WATER TANK, AHMEDABAD. VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, AHMEDABAD. PAN:AAACP 9275 D (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: S.N. SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: C.K. MISHRA, SR. DR O R D E R PER D.C. AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- 1. THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 428/AHD/2 003 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-1994 IN THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE AND ALSO IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPOR T OF THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED SEVERAL CONTENTIONS. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE IS THAT EVEN THOUG H ISSUE REGARDING ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS DISCUSS ED AND DECIDED AGAINST MA NO. 29/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF CO. NO. 292/AHD /2003 AND ITA NO.428/AHD/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-1994 - 2 - THE ASSESSEE, BUT THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION DURING TH E COURSE OF HEARING ABOUT OTHER ISSUES ON MERIT EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE N OT SPECIFICALLY ARGUED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. IN OUR CONSIDERED VI EW THERE IS NO CASE FOR RECTIFYING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 17-1 0-2008. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISCUSSED VARIOUS ISSUES, LEGAL AS WELL AS FACT UAL IN GREAT DETAIL. THE ORDER RUNS IN 29 PAGES AND WHILE DISPOSING OF THE I SSUES ON MERIT, TRIBUNAL HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHO RITIES. ONCE THIS IS THE FACTUAL POSITION THEN IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO A CCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT PARTIES HAVE NOT ARGUED THEIR MATTERS ON MERIT AND TRIBUNAL AT ITS OWN AND WITHOU T FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE DECIDED THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE OR ASSESSEE ON MERITS. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DRAW THE SE INFERENCES AS SUGGESTED BY LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. CO NSIDERING THE FACTUAL POSITION AS EMERGING FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL , WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED: 22/03/2010 ANKIT* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED MA NO. 29/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF CO. NO. 292/AHD /2003 AND ITA NO.428/AHD/2003 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-1994 - 3 - 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD.