The Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited, Yamunanagar V. ITO (TDS), Panchkula

MA 57/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2964 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: T N SINGLA PROXY

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) DEV DARSHAN SUD, PRESIDENT & SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NOS. 54 TO 57/CHD/2014 (IN ITA NOS. 830 TO 833/CHD/2012) ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 THE SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD., VS. THE ITO (TDS) (NOW KNOWN AS ISGEE HEAVY ENGINEERING PANCHK ULA LMT., YAMUNNAGAR PAN NO. AAACT5540K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N. SINGLA (PROXY COUNSEL) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 01/05/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/05/2015 ORDER PER JUSTICE (RETD.) DEV DARSHAN SUD, PRESIDENT : THROUGH THIS MISC. APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SOU GHT RECTIFICATION OF AN ERROR WHICH HAS CREPT INTO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 830/CHD/2012 TO 833/CHD/2012. 2. SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, C.A., LD. COUNSEL WAS INSTRU CTED TO APPEAR AND ARGUE THE MISC. APPLICATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. TODAY, SHRI T.N. SINGLA, PROXY COUNSEL APPEARED AND PRODUCED BEFORE US A FAX COPY OF LETTER ADDRESSED BY SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR STAT ING AS UNDER:- THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPLICATIONS ARE LISTED FOR HE ARING BEFORE THE HON'BLE B BEACH FOR TODAY I.E. 01.05.2015. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADJUDICATE D ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICATION ALREADY FIXED BEFORE THE HON'BLE BE NCH. 2 4. WE FIND THAT SIMPLY PRAYING FOR ADJUDICATING THE CAUSE ON THE PURPORTED GROUNDS STATED IN THE APPLICATION AND THAT TOO ON THE REQUE ST MADE IN A CASUAL MANNER IN THE FAXED COMMUNICATION IS NOT AN APPROACH WHICH CAN BE COMME ND ITSELF IN LAW. THIS IS A CASUAL MANNER IN WHICH A REQUESTED IS EXPRESSED. SIMPLY PL ACING AN APPLICATION ON THE RECORD CANNOT BE COMMENDED AS METHOD OF ADJUDICATION. WE FIND THAT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN ADJOURNED TWICE VIZ. ON 19.9.2014 AND 17.4.2015 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND TODAY THE REQUEST EXPRESSED IN THE TERMS STATED ABOVE. W E ARE PAINED AND SADDENED AT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN PUT UP FOR ADJUDICATION. APPLICATION DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/05/2015 SD/- SD/- [T.R. SOOD] [JUSTICE (RETD.)DE V DARSHAN SUD] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRE SIDENT DATED : IST MAY, 2015 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR