Smt. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon V. Joint CIT, Range-1, Jalgaon

MA 45/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6773 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-09-2021
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM M.A. NO.45/PUN/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.732/PUN/2013) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, PROP. OF R.C. BAFNA JEWELLERS, 91, SUBHASH CHOWK, JALGAON 425001. PAN: AADPB9424E .. /APPLICANT / V/S. JT. CIT, RANGE-1, JALGAON. .. / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI SUDHENDU DAS ASSESSEE BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 03.09.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.09.2021 / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: THE PRESENT M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON 09.01.2018 IN ITA NO.732/PUN/2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS : A) THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER AS WELL AS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED DO NOT FIND PLACE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. B) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF PRESIDING OFFICER WITHOUT IMPOSING CONDITIONS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT EXCEED EXEMPT INCOME. C) THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD PROCEEDED ON THE WRONG ASSUMPTIONS THAT THERE WAS A CONCESSION BY THE LD.A.R. BY THE PETITIONER WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.63,75,000/- AND THEN QUESTIONING THE ORDER OF THE REMAND WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.2,44,62,169/- U/S 28(414) OF I.T. ACT. 2 MA NO.45/PUN/2018 2. WHEN THE PETITIONER WAS CALLED ON NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER DESPITE DUE SERVICE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPAD. THE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT IS AVAILABLE. WE NOTICE FROM THE ORDER SHEET THAT THIS MATTER WAS FIRSTLY ADJOURNED TO 30.11.2018 AT THE REQUEST OF LD.A.R. SHRI SUNIL GANOO. FROM 30.11.2018 TO 12.07.2019 THE M.A. WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME. ON 12.07.2019 AGAIN IT WAS ADJOURNED ON THE GROUND THAT LD.A.R. WAS BUSY IN OTHER COURT AND POSTED TO 26.07.2019. FROM 26.07.2019 TO 16.04.2021, THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED FROM TIME TO TIME AT THE REQUEST OF LD.A.R. ON 16.04.2021 M.A. WAS ADJOURNED TO 04.06.2021. ON 04.06.2021 NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ADJOURNED TO 16.07.2021. ON 16.07.2021 AGAIN NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE ADJOURNED FOR 03.09.2021. EVEN ON 03.09.2021 ALSO NONE WERE PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE LAST OCCASION, THE SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS MADE THROUGH RPAD NO.1052. THEREFORE, IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE PRESUME THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE PRESENT M.A. AND THEREFORE PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. SR.DR. 3. THE LD. SR.D.R. HAD OPPOSED THE PRESENT PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE PETITIONER IS ONLY SEEKING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER UNDER THE GRAB OF RECTIFICATION PETITION. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ON MERE READING OF THE PRESENT PETITION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT HE IS ONLY TRYING TO RE-ARGUE THE APPEAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.254(2) OF THE ACT. 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION. THE PRESENT PETITION HAS BEEN FILED AS IF THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL CONTAINS CERTAIN MISTAKE OF FACTS AND LAW. THE FIRST ONE IS REGARDING THE NON- MENTIONING OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3 MA NO.45/PUN/2018 FIRSTLY, THE PETITIONER HAD NOT FILED THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY HER AT THE TIME OF HEARING. SECONDLY, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD INDICATING THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER HAD RELIED UPON THESE DECISIONS AND BROUGHT TO SPECIFIC THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT IT IS NOT MANDATORY TO DEAL WITH EACH AND EVERY DECISION RELIED UPON BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES TO THE CASE UNLESS OTHERWISE THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH. FURTHER, THIS ISSUE REQUIRES EXAMINATION, ARGUMENTS TO ESTABLISH AS TO HOW THESE DECISIONS ARE IDENTICAL TO ISSUE ON HAND. THEREFORE, THE POINTS WHICH ARE CONSIDERED TO BE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD BY THE PETITIONER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THUS, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS TOTALLY MISCONCEIVED AND LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 07 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 2021. YAMINI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-2, NASHIK. 4. THE CIT-2, NASHIK. 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.