Sh. Satnam Singh., Jalandhar V. The Income-tax Officer, Phagwara

MA 40/ASR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0166 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R L CHHANALIA
• Keywords: Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.40(ASR)/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.23(ASR)/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 PAN :ARQPS-6196J SH.SATNAM SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C/O SH. NIRMAL MAHAJAN & ASSOCIATES, WARD-3, PHAGWA RA. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.NIRMAL MAHAJAN, CA RESPONDENT BY:SH. R.L.CHHANALIA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 12/04/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:17/04/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, DATED 06.08.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.2 3(ASR)/2011 AND ITA NO.14(ASR)/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED MISC. APPLICATION, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. MA NO.40(ASR)/2012 2 REF: REQUEST TO RECALL THE ORDER PASSED ON 18.07.2 012 IN ITA NO.23(ASR)/2011 AND 14(ASR)2011. SATNAM SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, PHAGW ARA. HONOURABLE SIR, I HAVE RECEIVED ON 16.08.2012, THE COPY OF THE ORD ER PRONOUNCEMENT BY THE HONOURABLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A MRITSAR BENCH, ON 06.08.2012, WHICH STATES THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY ME BEFORE THE HONOURABLE TRIBUNAL, BEING APPEAL NO.23(ASR)/2011 AND 14(ASR)/2011 HAS BEEN DECIDED EX-PARTE ON THE GROU ND THAT I HAVE DEFAULTED IN APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 18. 07.2012 WHICH WAS THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING OF THE APPEAL. I SUBMIT THAT DUE TO PROBLEM IN THE BACK, THE COUN SEL COULD NOT APPEAR ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND HE SENT AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT VIDE SPEED POST DATED 16.07.2012. (COPY OF LETTER ENCLO SED). THEREFORE, THE DEFAULT OCCURRED DUE TO THE REASONS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES BEYOND MY CONTROL. THIS EX-PARTE ORDER HAS PUT ME IN GREAT HARDSHIP. AS REGARDS POINT OF JURISDICTION, SERVICE OF NOTICE AND FABRICATION OF ORDER SHEET ETC; THE ASSESSMENT RECORD CONTAINS LOT OF MATERIAL WHICH A O HAS COVERED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAS TRIED TO HIDE THE FAC TS. IN THE ABOVE STATED CIRCUMSTANCES, I PRAY THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 06.08.2012 DECIDING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE FOR DEFAUL T OF MY APPEARANCE ON THE SPECIFIED DATE, MAY BE REVOKED AND APPEAL R ESTORED TO FILE FOR HEARING AND DISPOSAL ACCORDINGLY. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED THE AFFIDAVIT, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I NIRMAL MAHAJAN S/O SH. OM PARKAHS, RESIDENT OF 84, RADIO COLONY, JALANDHAR, DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY AFFIRM AS UND ER: 1. THAT I AM A PRACTICING CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT BY PROF ESSION AND HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AS COUNSEL BY SATNAM, ASINGH TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE HONBLE BENCH OF ITAT, AMRITSAR. 2. THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.40/ASR/-2012, DA TED 13.09.2012 IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 12.4.2013. MA NO.40(ASR)/2012 3 3. THAT IN THE ORIGINAL APPEAL NO.23(ASR)/2011, DECIDE D EX-PARTE ON 18.07.2013, THERE ARE THREE MAIN POINTS I.E. POI NT OF JURISDICTION, POINT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND POINT OF TRANSPORTATION OF ORDER SHEET. 4. I CONFIRM THAT I HAVE INSPECTED THE ASSESSMENT RECO RD OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVIDENCE REGARDING ALL THESE POINTS ME NTIONED AT 3 ABOVE EXIST IN THE FILE AND SAME CAN BE VERIFIED FR OM THE RECORD. SD/- (DEPONENT) I, NIRMAL MAHAJAN, THE ABOVE NAMED DEPONENT, CERTIF Y THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND POINT NO.3 IS PART OF ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE. SD/- (DEPONENT) 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. NIRMAL MAH AJAN, CA MAINLY RELIED UPON THE CONTENTS OF MISC. APPLICATION AND T HE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED AND ARGUED THAT ALL THE EVIDENCES WITH REGARD TO THE TH REE MAIN POINTS ARE ON RECORD AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITA T, NEEDS TO BE RECALLED. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DATED 06.08.2012. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS REGARDS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION SENT BY SPEED POST HAS NOT BEEN ENTERTA INED, THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF THE ADJOURNMENT ON RECORD ON THE DAT E OF HEARING AND ALSO THE LD. COUNSEL COULD NOT ADDUCE ANY SUCH EVIDENCE OF S ERVICE OF THE FILING OF THE MA NO.40(ASR)/2012 4 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF T HE APPEAL. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AGITATION OF THE LD. COUNSEL ON THIS ACCOUNT, IS REJECTED. 6. AS REGARDS THE AFFIDAVIT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED THREE MAIN POINTS I.E. POINT OF JURISDICTION, POINT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND POINT OF TRANSPORTATION OF ORDER SHEET, WE HAVE PASSED OUR O RDER AS PER AVAILABLE RECORD OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BEFORE US AND WE FIND NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEREF ORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE THREE MAIN P OINTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS AFFIDAVIT CANNOT GIVE RISE TO A MIS TAKE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 7. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REJECT THE MISC. APP LICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A.NO.40(ASR)/2012 OF THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH APRIL, 2013. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU (B.P. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17TH APRIL, 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH.SATNAM SINGH, JALANDHAR. 2. THE ITO WARD 3, PHAGWARA. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR. 4. THE CIT, JLR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR.