Parshotam Dass (Deceased), Pehowa V. ITO, Kurukshetra

MA 47/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2953 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.47/CHD/2014 IN ITA NO.424 /CHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08) SH.PARSHOTAM DASS (DECEASED), VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THROUGH L/H PROP. M/S SHARDA WARD-1, RAM SATPAL, KURUKSHETRA. SHOP NO.5, ANAJ MANDI, PEHOWA. PAN: AANPD-8214E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.05.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THE APPLICANT FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR RECALLING OF THE EARLIER ORDER DATE D 20.9.2013. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AGAINST THE AP PLICANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE TWO ADDITIONS OF RS.57,4 00 AND RS.22,267/- TOTALING TO RS.79,667/-. THE APPLICANT CHALLENGED THE ORDER AND THE ADDITIONS BEFORE THE L EARNED CIT (APPEALS) AND ALSO REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES BECAUSE OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY T HE 2 ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) REJE CTED THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND A LSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT. 3. THE RECORD REVEALED THAT THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN B Y THE TRIBUNAL ON 1.7.2013 AND APPLICANTS COUNSEL SH RI G.SAGAR, ADVOCATE APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 17.7.2013. ON 17.7.2013 N ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. THEREFORE, T HE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 2.9.2013. THE APPLICANT WAS NOTI FIED OF THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 2.9.2013 THROUGH REGD. POST. HO WEVER, NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE DATE OF HE ARING ON 2.9.2013. THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT WAS, THEREF ORE, DECIDED EX-PARTE. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT DIRECTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WH ICH ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPLICANT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE WHIL E CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AVAILABLE WITH THE APPLICANT AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE APPLIC ANT WAS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES VIDE ORDER DATED 2 0.9.2013. 4. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE APPLICANT WAS TAKEN FOR HEARING MANY TIMES. HOWEVER, NONE APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. NOTICE WAS, THEREFORE, SE NT THROUGH THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. THE REPORT OF THE ITO, WA RD-2, KURUKSHETRA IS AVAILABLE, IN WHICH IT IS STATED THA T AS PER LOCAL ENQUIRY, THE FAMILY OF THE APPLICANT HAS SHIF TED TO 3 PANIPAT WITHOUT ANY ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THE NOTIC E WAS SERVED UPON THE ADVOCATE OF THE APPLICANT, SHRI G.S AGAR ON 22.4.2015 FOR THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED ON 1.5.2015 . THE SERVICE REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE APPLICA NT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ALSO HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OTHER ADDRESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVICE UPON THE LEGAL H EIR OF THE APPLICANT. 5. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IT IS STATED THAT THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FOR 17.7.2013 AND SINCE TH E BENCH DID NOT WORK AND NO NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE LEGA L HEIR, THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED. THE ALLEGA TIONS ARE WHOLLY INCORRECT BECAUSE ON 1.7.2013 THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR AP PLICANT, SHRI G.SAGAR, ADVOCATE FOR 17.7.2013 AND THE RECORD ALSO REVEALED THAT ON 17.7.2013, THE BENCH FUNCTIONED AN D IN THE ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT, REPRESENTATIVE, THE APPEA L WAS ADJOURNED TO 2.9.2013. IT IS ALSO STATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT THE LEGAL HEIR ALSO SUBMITTED REQU EST FOR FIXATION OF THE APPEAL ON 30.10.2013. THIS ALLEG ATION IS ALSO INCORRECT BECAUSE THE APPEAL ITSELF HAS BEEN DECIDE D ON 20.9.2013. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF FIX ING THE APPEAL ON 30.10.2013. MOREOVER, NO REQUEST ON THE SIDE OF THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS FURTHE R STATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL RAISED IN FORM NO.36 ARE DIFFERENT. HOWEVER, IT M AY BE STATED THAT THOUGH THERE MAY BE SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE IN QUOTING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE ADDITIONS MAD E BY THE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER AND ISSUES OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S WERE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL WAS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD OF THE TRI BUNAL. THUS THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO MAKE OUT ANY CASE FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 20.9.2013. IT MAY BE STATED HERE AGAIN THAT THE APPEAL OF THE APPLICANT WAS ALLOWED BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WHICH IS THE MAIN APPEAL OF THE APPLICAN T. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS AND WITHOUT BASIS AND AS SUCH IS LIABLE T O BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ACC ORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE APPLICANT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH DAY OF MAY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 6 TH MAY, 2015 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5