Sh. Sumeet Taneja, Chandigarh V. Addl. CIT, Chandigarh

MA 9/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0169 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

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.9 /CHD/2013 (IN ITA NO.1101/CHD/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) SUMEET TANEJA VS. ADDL. C.I.T. H NO. 3203, TAX RANGE - IV DEFENCE SCIENTIST (TBRL) CHANDIGARH SOCIETY, SECTOR 51-D CHANDIGARH PAN: AACPT 8236 F AND M.A. NO.10 /CHD/2013 ITA NO. 1102/CHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) HARBIR SINGH KHURANA VS. ADDL C.I.T. H NO. 108, SECTOR 36-A TAX RANGE - IV CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN: (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARRY RIKHY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.04.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: BOTH THE APPLICANTS HAVE FILED THESE TWO MISCELLANE OUS APPLICATIONS FOR RECALLING THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER D ATED 8.6.2012 IN ITA NOS. 1101 & 1102/CHD/2012 RELATING TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE PLEA OF THE APPLICANT VIDE THE PRESENT MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WAS THAT THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX-PAR TE ON 8.6.2012, THOUGH THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT WAS REGULARLY APPEARING ON ALL THE DATES SINCE THE FILING OF THE APPEAL. IT WAS FURT HER MENTIONED THAT ON 6.2.2012 THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED THE COUNSEL TO F ILE THE PAPER BOOK 2 AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 15.3.2012. THE COUNS EL FOR THE APPLICANT FILED THE PAPER BOOK ALONGWITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 14.3.2012 AND THEREAFTER ON 15.3.2012 IT IS ALLEGED THAT AN EMPLO YEE OF THE APPLICANT APPEARED ALONG WITH THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AS THE COUNSEL WAS UNWELL. THE BODY OF THE TRIBUNAL HOWEVER MENTIONS THAT NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. THE AFFIDAVITS OF BOTH THE COUNSEL AND EMPLOYEE OF THE APPLICANT ARE ENCLOSED TO THE M ISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. IN VIEW THEREOF, REQUEST WAS MADE FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE . 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE APPLICANT PLEADED THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED APPEARED FOR SEEKING THE ADJOURNMENT. HO WEVER, IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE APPLICANT T HAT THE PERUSAL OF THE APPEAL RECORDS REFLECTS NO SUCH ADJOURNMENT APPLICA TION BEING AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE APPLICANT STRE SSED THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED ONLY FOR BRINGING THE FACTS ON RECORD. 4. THE LEARNED D.R., FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT TH AT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEAR ING AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PLEADINGS OF THE APP LICANT ON THE EARLIER DATES AND ALSO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 5. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD AND THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 8.6.2012 THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL VID E PARA 3 OF THE SAID ORDER WERE THAT THE APPEAL WAS PARTLY HEARD ON 6.2. 2012 AND THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT WAS DIRECTED TO FILE THE PAPER BO OK AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 15.3.2012 AT HIS REQUEST. ON THE SA ID DATE OF HEARING NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT EXCEPT FOR T HE WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS ALONGWITH COMPILATION OF PAPERS FILED BY T HE APPLICANT. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 3 OF THE ORDER HAD FURTHER NOTED T HAT IN THE SAID WRITTEN 3 SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ADDRESSED THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING. WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OFF THE PRESENT APP EAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE AND THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED ON MERITS VIDE PARA 4 TO 18 AT PAGES 2 TO 15 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPLICANT HAD FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNA L ON MERITS. 6. THE ONLY PLEA OF THE APPLICANT VIDE THIS MISCELL ANEOUS APPLICATION WAS THAT IT HAD MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMEN T WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF THE APPEAL REC ORDS REFLECTS NO SUCH ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION BEING AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE APPLICATION NOW BEING FILED BY THE APPLICANT ALONGWITH THE AFFIDAVI TS OF THE COUNSEL AND THE EMPLOYEE OF THE APPLICANT ARE SELF SERVING DOCU MENTS AND CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AT THIS JUNCTURE, ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED ON 14.3.2012 I.E ONE DAY BEF ORE THE DATE OF HEARING, WHICH IN TURN NOT ONLY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE ON MERITS BUT ALSO ARGUMENTS WERE RAISED AGAINST THE CASE LAWS CITED B Y THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE ON THE PREVIOUS DATE OF HEARING. IN T HE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEING MOVED BY THE APPLIC ANT AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS FILED BY THE APPLICANTS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF APRIL, 2013. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 3 RD APRIL, 2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4