Smt. Kulwant Kaur, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

MA 49/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8934 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 1990-1991
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KULWANT KAUR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS.49 TO 52 /CHD/2010 (IN W TA NOS.1 TO 4/CHD/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1990-91 TO 1992-93) SMT. KULWANT KAUR VS. THE A.C.W.T.(CIRCLE)VII, C/O HOUSE NO.207, RISHI NAGAR, SECTOR 35, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. AHUPK7639N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT.KULWANT KAUR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 27.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPLICANT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT IONS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990-91 TO 1992-93 IS AGGRIEVED BY THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 11.3.2010. 2. THE APPLICANT HAD FILED THE APPEALS BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL ON 11.1.2010 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990-91 TO 1 992-93 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 16(3) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT AND RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990-91 AGAINST PENALTY LEVIED U/S 18(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE APPLICANT WERE FOUN D TO BE DEFECTIVE FOR WHICH SEPARATE DEFECT NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSEE AND THE SAID DEFECTS WERE NOT REMOVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME AND ALSO NON-APPEARANCE OF THE APPLICANT ON TH E APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING, THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH OPPORTUNITY TO 2 ASSESSEE TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS AND SATISFY THE TRIB UNAL FOR NON- APPEARANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING, FOR RE CALLING THE ORDER PASSED ON 11.3.2010. 4. THE APPLICANT FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS ON 21.6.2010 UNDER WHICH IT SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD FAILED TO NOT ICE THE DATE OF HEARING IN THE DEFECT NOTICE AND AS SUCH, THE SAID DATE OF HEARING WAS NOT ENTERED IN HER DAILY DIARY. VIDE PARA 3 THE APPLICANT SUBM ITTED AS UNDER: 3. THAT PRESUMING THE SAID NOTICE AS ONLY A DEFECT NOTICE KEPT STRUGGLING TO GET THE DOCUMENTS SHORT IN THE APPEAL BY VISITING AND APPLYING FOR THE SAME WITH THE OFFICE OF INCOME TAX, LUDHIANA IN ORDER TO REFILE THE APPEAL FOR HEARING AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SAME. AS SHE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE APPEAL WOULD ONLY BE HEARD FOR HEARING ON THE REMOVAL OF THE SAID DEFECTS AS PER THE PRACTICE IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 5. THE PRAYER OF THE APPLICANT WAS THAT THE ORDER P ASSED IN THE CASE MAY BE RECALLED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 6. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE FIXED FOR HE ARING ON 1.10.2010 AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT HERSE LF, WHO IS AN ADVOCATE, IT WAS ADJOURNED TO 12/11/2010. ON 12.11.2010 THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ONS WERE SLATED FOR HEARING ON 14.01.2011 ON WHICH DATE THE BENCH DID N OT FUNCTION. THE MATTER WAS THEN FIXED FOR 4.3.2011 AND AT THE REQUE ST OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADJOURNED TO 01.4.2011 AND THEREAFTER TO 3.6.2011. THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION IN BETWEEN AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FO R 30.3.2012 BY ISSUE OF NOTICE. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E. HOWEVER, AN APPLICATION WAS MOVED AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 18.5.2012, ON WHICH DATE THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND FRESH NOT ICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED FOR 27.7.2012. THE APPLICANT APPEARED IN PE RSON ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 27.7.2012 AND AGAIN MADE A REQ UEST FOR ADJOURNMENT 3 AS SHE WAS UNABLE TO COLLECT THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WA S REFUSED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED ON 11.1.2010 AND T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE FORM NO.35 AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL FIL ED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) AND HAD ALSO NOT FILED COPY OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AND IN THE PENALTY APPEAL, THE COPY OF THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY WAS NOT ANNEXED TO THE MEMO OF APPE AL. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DEFECT NOTICE ISSUED TO T HE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED IN L IMINE WITH OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A PRAYER TO REC ALL THE ORDER IN CASE DEFECTS WERE REMOVED. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS WERE MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21.6.2010 AND DESPITE REPEATED ADJO URNMENT BEING GRANTED FROM DATE TO DATE IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, TH E APPLICANT WHO IS AN ADVOCATE HERSELF, HAS FAILED TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS TILL DATE. EVEN ON LAST DATE OF HEARING THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THAT SHE WA S STILL COLLECTING THE DOCUMENTS. NO REASON HAS BEEN ADVANCED FOR NON-APP EARANCE ON THE STATED DAY OF HEARING. IN THE ABOVESAID FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EVEN REMOVE THE DEFECTS IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEO US APPLICATIONS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 28 TH AUGUST, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4