Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Pehowa V. JCIT, Kurukshetra

MA 86/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9933 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SHARMA

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. NO.86 /CHD/2012 (IN ITA NO.809/CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) MR.MUKESH KUMAR VS. THE J.C.I.T., H.NO.94, WARD 3, KURUKSHETRA. PEHOWA. PAN: ADYPK5446M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJEEV SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.02.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPLICANT HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 30.09.2011 IN ITA NO. 809 /CHD/2011 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 2. THE APPLICANT VIDE THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION HAS PRAYED FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATE D 30.9.2011. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ADDRESS THE BENCH AS HE WAS NOT WELL. THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER DATED 30. 9.2011 REFLECTS THAT ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING MS. JYOTI HAD APPE ARED FOR ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH HAD MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR AD JOURNMENT WHICH WAS REFUSED IN VIEW OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL AND THE APPEAL IS DECIDED AFTER HEARING BOTH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES . IN VIEW OF THE APPEAL BEING DECIDED AFTER HEARING BOTH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEO US APPLICATION FILED 2 BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE, LOOKING INTO THE FAC TS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS WE FIND THAT THERE WERE TWO ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) . THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE LOSS OF TRAD ING OF RICE BASMATI AND RICE GRADE-A.. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD SURRENDERED ADDITION OF RS.2,29,955/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF TRA DING OF RICE BASMATI BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). THE TRIBUNAL IN VIEW THE REOF, UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD. 3. IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS CLAIMED IN RICE GRADE-A TOTALING RS.6,67,763/- . THE MATTER HAS BEEN REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WITH THE DIRECTIONS, BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.9.2011. IN VIEW OF THE ADJUDICATION OF BOTH THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE APPLICANT AN D HENCE, THE SAME IS REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 3