M/s Atma Petrochemical Products, Vijayawada V. The ACIT, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

MA 3/VIZ/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6250 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S SUNDER SINGH

Judgement Text

MA NOS.2&3/VIZ/2011 ATMA PETROCHEMICAL PRODUCTS, VJA IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO S . 2&3 /VIZAG/ 20 11 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.169&170/VIZAG/2007) AS SESSMENT YEAR S : 1997 - 98 & 1999 - 2000 M/S. ATMA PETROCHEMICAL PRODUCTS VIJAYAWADA ACIT, WARD - 2(3) VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AADFA 2545D APPELLANT BY: SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, SR. DR ORD ER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THROUGH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A REQUEST FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23.9.2010 THROUGH WHICH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DECIDED ON MERIT AFTER REJECTIN G THE REQUEST OF ADJOURNMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WELL AND AS SUCH HE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO PURSUE ITS CASE. THEREFORE, T HE NON - APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS FILED THE MEDICAL REPORT AND DISCHARGE SUMMARY OF THE KRISHNA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE LIMITED. 2. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GRANTED VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BUT ALL THE TIME THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER. EVEN THE COST IMPOSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR GRANTING THE ADJOURNMENT WA S ALSO NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY DECLINED THE ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THE LD. D.R. HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE MEDICAL RECORD WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE COUNSEL O F THE ASSESSEE WHO HAPPENED TO BE THE HUSBAND OF THE ONE OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS ADMITTED MA NOS.2&3/VIZ/2011 ATMA PETROCHEMICAL PRODUCTS, VJA 2 IN THE HOSPITAL DURING THE PERIOD W.E.F. 22.7.2010 TO 28.7.2010, WHEREAS, THE APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING ON 2 ND OF SEPTEMBER, 2010. HE FURTHER CON TENDED THAT NO DOCUMENT IS PLACED ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ON 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2010, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WAS INDISPOSED. MOREOVER, THE SO CALLED COUNSEL HAS NOT APPEARED TODAY TO ARGUE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THERE FORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BASELESS AND DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 3 . HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THESE APPEALS WERE LISTED FOR HEARING FIRST TIME ON 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2008, THEREAFTER IT WAS ADJOURNED AT 9 TIMES FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES. ON 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2009, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED WITH LAST CHANCE FOR 28.10.2009. EVEN ON 28.10.2009, THE HEARING WAS FURTHER ADJOURNED AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES FOR 21.1.2010 WHICH WAS FURTHER ADJOURNED TO 21.4.2010. THEREAFTER, ON 29.6.2010, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES BUT THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF RS.2,000/ - FOR 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2010. EVEN THIS COST WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE FURTHER SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORDS AVAILABLE AND WE FIND THAT THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NONE OTHER THAN THE HUSBAND OF ONE OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM S. JANAKI. THEREFORE, IT IS ALL THE MORE NECESSARY FOR THE PROFESSIONAL TO PROSECUTE HIS OWN CASE MORE SINCERELY AND HONESTLY. BUT IN THIS CASE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS COUNSEL ARE MORE NEGLIGENT AND MADE THE MISUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW BY NOT PROSECUTING THEIR APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHERE BY THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED THEIR APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATIONS. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.2 .20 1 1 SD/ - SD/ - (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 7 TH FEBRUARY , 20 1 1 MA NOS.2&3/VIZ/2011 ATMA PETROCHEMICAL PRODUCTS, VJA 3 COPY TO 1 M/S. ATMA PETROCHEMICAL PRODUCTS, 5 TH ROAD, AUTONAGAR, VIJAYAWADA - 520007 2 THE ACIT WARD - 2(3), VIJAYAWADA 3 THE CI T, VIJAYAWADA 4 THE CIT (A) , VIJAYAWADA 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOM E TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM