Shri Vinod Prakash Saxena, Ujjain V. The ACIT, Cir.2(1), Ujjain

MA 67/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8691 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KESHAV SAXENA
• Assessee Lawyers: JAMIR AHMED; A SATHE

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 67/IND/2011 (ARISING OUT OF M.A. NO. 26/IND/2011) (IT(SS) A. NO. 2/IND/2007) BLOCK PERIOD 1986-87 TO 5.9.1995 VINOD PRAKASH SAXENA INDORE PAN - :: APPLICANT VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1), UJJAIN :: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI JAMIR AHMED AND SHRI A. SATHE RESPONDENT BY SHRI KESHAV SAXENA DATE OF HEARING 6.7.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 6.7.2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ARISING OUT OF A NOTHER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY TH E TRIBUNAL FOR NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE/COUNSEL. 2 2. WHEN THIS APPLICATION WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT AND IT WAS PRONOUNCED TO BE DISMISSED A GAIN. HOWEVER, AFTER SOME TIME THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SHRI JAMIR AHMED ALONG WITH SHRI A. SATHE APPEARED AND T HE APPLICATION WAS AGAIN TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. WHEN T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED FOR NON-APPEARAN CE ON EARLIER OCCASION, IT WAS MERELY STATED THAT IT WAS THE FAULT OF THE EARLIER COUNSEL. REGARDING THE PRESENT APPLICATIO N, NOTHING WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING NON-APPEARANCE AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MERELY SAID I HAVE NOTHIN G TO SAY. THE LEARNED CIT DR STRONGLY ASSERTED THAT SINCE BEGINNI NG THE ASSESSEE IS VERY CASUAL IN ITS APPROACH, THEREFORE, NO LENIENCY IS REQUIRED ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADDUC ED ANY REASON FOR HIS NON-APPEARANCE ON THE APPOINTED DATE S AND TIME. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RECORD AVAILABLE ON FILE. BEFORE COMING TO ANY CON CLUSION, WE ARE SUPPOSED TO MENTION CERTAIN FACTS. THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS FILED ON 10.1.2007 AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER SHE ET ENTRY OF EVEN DATE. FINALLY, THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARI NG FOR 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2009 VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 30.10.2 008. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI K. KACHWAHA AND A. TR IPATHI 3 APPEARED WHO REQUESTED THE BENCH TO PROVIDE TIME TO CONCISE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THIS ORDER SHEET IS DULY NOTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURN ED TO 22.4.2009. ON 22.4.2009, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONC ISE THE GROUND AND LAST OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASS ESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.4.2009. AGAIN ON28. 4.2009, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE ORDER AND AGAIN SO UGHT TIME. THE BENCH AGAIN TOOK A LENIENT VIEW AND GRANTED TIM E UP TO 12.5.2009 WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IF THE EARLIER DI RECTION IS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE APPEAL WILL BE DISMISSED. THIS O RDER SHEET WAS DULY NOTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. ON 12.5.2009 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HE IS N OT IN A POSITION TO SAY ANYTHING, THEREFORE, LAST OPPORTUNI TY WAS GIVEN. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY TOLD THAT THIS IS LAST AND FINAL O PPORTUNITY AND IF THE DIRECTION IS NOT COMPLIED WITH, THE APPEAL WILL BE DISMISSED. THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 8.7.2009. ON 8.7.2009 THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 29 .9.2009. ON THAT DATE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 14 TH DECEMBER, 2009. ON 14.12.23009 THE ASSESSEE AGAIN REQUESTED FOR ADJOUR NMENT AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 25.2.2010. ON THAT DAT E NOBODY 4 APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL W AS ADJOURNED TO 17 TH MAY, 2010. ON THAT DATE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE SOUGH T ADJOURNMENT. FINALLY, ON 30.12.2010 NOBODY APPEARE D FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSE CUTION. 4. AGAINST THE DISMISSAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED MISCEL LANEOUS PETITION FOR RESTORATION OF THE APPEAL. THE MISCEL LANEOUS PETITION WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 16.9.2011 FOR WHICH REGIS TERED AD NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DULY SERVED AS I S EVIDENT FROM POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. ON 16.9.2011 ALSO NOB ODY APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY THE MISCEL LANEOUS PETITION WAS ALSO DISMISSED. 5. AGAINST THE AFORESAID DISMISSAL OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED ANOTHER MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATION ON 28.11.2011. THE APPLICATION WAS FIX ED FOR HEARING ON 13.4.2012 AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE R EQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE REQUEST WAS ALLOWED AND LAST OPPO RTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR 11.5.2012. ON 11.5.201 2 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AND MERELY FILED ADJOURNMEN T PETITION WHICH WAS ALLOWED AND ADJOURNED TO 8.6.2012. IN BET WEEN ON 30.5.2012 THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS ALLOWED AND ADJOURNED TO 6.7.2012 I.E. FO R TODAY. 5 WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS CALLED, NOBODY REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS PRONOUNCED AS DISMISSED. HOWEV ER, AFTER SOMETIME, SHRI JAMIR AHMED ALONG WITH SHRI A. SATHE , LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, CAME. ON THEIR ASKING IT WAS TOLD BY THE BENCH THAT YOUR APPLICATION HAS ALREADY BEEN DI SMISSED. HOWEVER, BY TAKING A LENIENT VIEW, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WERE ASKED TO ARGUE THEIR APPLICATION AND TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON EARLIER OCCASION. TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MERELY SAID THAT IT WAS THE FAULT OF THE EARLIER COUNSEL AND THEY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. IN VIEW OF T HESE FACTS, ONE FACT IS CLEARLY OOZING OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ME RELY FILED THE APPEAL AND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE SAME. NO EXPLANATION WAS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO DISMISS THE MISCEL LANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING HEARING, THE L EARNED CIT DR ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION IN CIT VS. ITAT AND OTH ERS; 196 ITR 640 TO THE EFFECT THAT FOR REPEATED FAILURE, NO LEN IENCY IS REQUIRED. THE LEARNED CIT DR ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATION AGAINST MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS OT HERWISE NOT MAINTAINABLE. WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION AND THE FACTS NARRATED HEREINABOVE, IT IS CLEARLY THE CASUAL APPR OACH OF THE 6 ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SECOND APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT IS DISMISSED, ESPECIALL Y WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTHING TO SAY EVEN WHEN OPPORTUNITY W AS GRANTED IN SPITE OF ABOVE FACTS. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 6.7.2012. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 6.7.2012 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/-66 7