M/s. S.Beant Singh & Co., Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(5), Baroda

MA 7/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1023 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.7/AHD/2013 ( IN !./ IN I.T.A. NO.1742/AHD/2012) ( ' (' ' (' ' (' ' (' / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S.S BEANT SINGH & CO. 18, GREEN PARK SOCIETY MAKARPURA ROAD BARODA 390 010 / VS. THE ITO WARD-2(5) BARODA ) !./*+ !./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAPFS 3735A ( ), / // / APPLICANT ) .. ( -.), / RESPONDENT ) ), / / APPLICANT BY : SHRI TEJ SHAH -.), 0 / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P.BATHEJA, SR.D.R. ' 1 0 $2 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 15/11/2013 34( 0 $2 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/11/2013 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED ON 16/ 01/2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DAT ED 05/10/2012 PASSED BY THE ITAT BENCH B AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO.1742/AH D/2012 FOR AY 2006-07. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASS ESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT HAS FILED THE ABOVE REFERRED MISCELL ANEOUS APPLICATION SEEKING INDULGENCE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO R ECTIFY ITS ORDER MA NO.7/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO.1742 /AHD/2012) M/S.S.BEANT SINGH & CO. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - IN ITA NO.1742/AHD/2012 DATED 05/10/2012 ON THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS:- (I) THE AFORESAID APPEAL WAS DIRECTED FOR HEARING O N 01/10/2012. ON THE SAID DATE, (II) HOWEVER, NECESSARY AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANIED BY TH E WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO BE MADE WERE PREPARED AND KEPT READY FOR BEING SENT TO THE COUNSEL BY THE OFFICE OF C.A. HOWEVER THE SAME COULD NOT BE DISPATCHED TO THE COUNSEL BY THE OFFICE OF T HE SAID OFFICE DUE TO OVER-SIGHT OR LACK OF CLARIFICATIONS, CONSEQUENT LY THE APPEAL REMAINED UNATTENDED THE MATTER WAS DISMISSED FOR DE FAULT RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/ S. MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT.LTD. 38 ITD 320. SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CASE FROM APPEARANCE AS HE WAS RELYING U PON HIS COUNSEL, THE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BE RECALLED. (III) THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THE CASE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SUCCEED BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT AND IF NOT ENTERT AINED WILL CAUSE A GRAVE ECONOMIC LOSS TO THE APPLICANT. (IV) THEREFORE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE DEMAN D THAT THE ORDER NEEDS TO BE RECALLED AND AN OPPORTUNITY BE GR ANTED TO THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF HIS CASE. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE APPLICANT SHALL EV ERY PRAY. 2. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 05/10/2012. HE SUBMIT TED THAT REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE IS GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL WAS TIME-BARRED BY 771 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT EXPLAIN THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONATION OF SUCH LONG DELAY OF 771 DAYS. HE MA NO.7/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO.1742 /AHD/2012) M/S.S.BEANT SINGH & CO. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT, NO REASONABLE CAUSE IS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE TRIB UNAL HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE DELAY AS WELL AS NON-APPEARANCE O F THE ASSESSEE. IN THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 9/01/2013 ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T GIVEN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE EXCEPT THAT WHAT IS STATED IN PARAGRAPH NOS.1 TO 4 ARE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SAME IS STATED ON THE BASIS OF PERSON AL KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND THE SAME IS TRUE AND CORRECT. THERE IS NO PARAGRAPH NOS.1 TO 4 IN THE SAID AFFIDAVIT AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOW EVER, THERE ARE FOUR GROUNDS TAKEN INTO THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 3.1. IN THE FIRST GROUND IT IS STATED ABOUT THE FIX ATION OF THE APPEAL. IN THE SECOND GROUND, IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THA T NECESSARY AFFIDAVIT ACCOMPANIED BY THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO BE MADE W ERE PREPARED AND KEPT READY FOR BEING SENT TO THE COUNSEL BY THE OFF ICE OF THE C.A. HOWEVER, THE SAME COULD NOT BE DISPATCHED TO THE CO UNSEL OF THE OFFICE DUE TO OVERSIGHT OR LACK OF CLARIFICATION, CONSEQUE NTLY THE APPEAL REMAINED UNATTENDED, THE MATTER WAS DISMISSED FOR D EFAULT RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUL TIPLAN INDIA PVT.LTD. 38 ITD 320. SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY S UFFICIENT CASE FROM APPEARANCE AS HE WAS RELYING UPON HIS COUNSEL, THE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BE RECALLED. THE THIRD GROUND IS TAKEN THAT THE A PPLICANT SUBMITS THE CASE HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SUCCEED BEFOR E THIS HONBLE COURT AND IF NOT ENTERTAINED WILL CAUSE A GRAVE ECONOMIC LOSS TO THE APPLICANT. MA NO.7/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO.1742 /AHD/2012) M/S.S.BEANT SINGH & CO. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - THE FOURTH GROUND IS TAKEN THAT PRINCIPLES OF NATUR AL JUSTICE DEMAND THAT THE ORDER NEEDS TO BE RECALLED AND AN OPPORTUNITY B E GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF HIS CASE. 4. FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN GROUND NO.(II) OF T HE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE WAS NO REASON ABLE CAUSE, BUT THERE WAS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NEGLIG ENCE OF ANY ASSESSEES COUNSEL, IN OUR VIEW, CANNOT BE TERMED AS A REASONA BLE CAUSE. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE IN DELAY FOR APPROACHING THE TRIBUNAL. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DECLINE TO RE CALL THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 05/10/2012(SUPRA) AND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 15/ 11 /2013 72.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS MA NO.7/AHD/2013 (IN ITA NO.1742 /AHD/2012) M/S.S.BEANT SINGH & CO. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - 5 0 -$8 98($ 5 0 -$8 98($ 5 0 -$8 98($ 5 0 -$8 98($/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ), / THE APPELLANT 2. -.), / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-V, BARODA 5. 8 #; -$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<' =1 / GUARD FILE. 5' 5' 5' 5' / BY ORDER, .8$ -$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !* !* !* !* ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 15.11.13 (DICTATION-PAD 6-PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 15.11.13 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.15.11.13 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 15.11.13 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER