M/s Vardhman Spinning & General Mills Ltd., Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

MA 90/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9944 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBHASH AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, A.M AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M MISC. APPLICATION NO. 90/CHD/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 313/CHD/2005 A.Y: 1999-2000 M/S VARDHMAN SPINNING & V A.C.I.T. I GENERAL MILLS LTD LUDHIANA LUDHIANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SUBHASH AGGARWAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING 8.2.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.2.2013 O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, A.M ORIGINALLY ITA NO. 313/CHD/2005 WAS HEARD AND DISPO SED OFF BY THE TRIBUNAL BY TREATING THE ISSUE COVERED I N FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S MAHAVIR SPINNING MILLS IN ITA NO. 476/CHD/2002. AGAINST THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED MISC. APPLICATION NO . 181/CHD/2008. THIS MISC. APPLICATION WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. AGAINST THIS DISMISSAL OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED FRESH MISC. APPLICA TION NO. 90/CHD/2012. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT M ISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED IN L IMINE WITHOUT PROPER OPPORTUNITY AND THEREFORE, THAT ORDE R SHOULD BE RECALLED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT MADE REPRESENTATION BECAUSE SHRI VINEET JAIN WHO SA W THE CONSTITUTION WRONGLY BELIEVED THAT BENCH B WAS NO T FUNCTIONING ON 29.6.2002. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN 2 DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, ORDER I N MISC. APPLICATION NO. 181/CHD/2008 SHOULD BE RECALLED. W HEN THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED WHY THE SECOND MI SC. APPLICATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND WHETHER THE ASSES SEE HAD APPROACHED THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION S HOULD NOT BE TREATED AS MISC. APPLICATION ON MISC. APPLICATIO N AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SU BMITTED THAT IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NO MISC. APPLICATION CA N BE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN MISC. APPLICATION. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT MISC. APPLICATION NO. 181/CHD/2008 CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 15.5.2009, SOMETIMES THE BENCH DID NOT F UNCTION AND SOMETIMES THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS WHIC H WERE REGULARLY GIVEN. THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE SAID BEN CH FOR 18.6.2012 TO 29.6.2012 READS AS UNDER: DATE COURT ROOM NO BENCH HON'BLE MEMBERS 21.6.2012 & 22.6.2012 I B HON'BLE V.P. SHRI H.L. KARWA & HON'BLE A.M. SHRI MEHAR SINGH 13..6.2012 TO 22.6.2012 II A HON'BLE A.M. SHRI T.R. SOOD HON'BLE J.M.MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA CONSTITUTION OF CHANDIGARH BENCHES FROM 25.6.2012 T O 29.6.2012 DATE COURT ROOM NO BENCH HON'BLE MEMBERS 25.6.2012 TO 29.6.2012 II A HON'BLE A.M. SHRI T.R. SOOD HON'BLE J.M. MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA NOTE: 1 BENCH B WILL NOT FUNCTION FROM 18.6.2012 TO 20.6.2012 AND 25.6.2012 TO 29.6.2012. 3 2 SMC CASES FIXED ON 18.6.2012 ARE ADJOURNED TO 26.6.2012. 3 HON'BLE A.M. SHRI MEHAR SINGH WILL DO CHAMBER WORK FROM 18.6.2012 TO 20.6.2012. 4. M.A,SA & PART HEARD MATTERS WILL BE HEARD BY RESPECTIVE BENCHES. 5 POINT 4 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT M.A, SA AND PART HEARD MATTERS WERE TO BE HEARD BY RESPECTIVE BENCHES. IT CANNOT B E SAID THAT SHRI VINEET JAIN WHO IS STATED TO BE A CHARTERED AC COUNTANT IN ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, WAS SO IGNORANT THAT HE CANNOT EVEN READ THE CONSTITUTION PROPERLY. IT CLEARLY SHOWS TH AT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REPRESENT ITS CASE DELIBERATELY. IN ANY CASE IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT NO M.A CAN BE FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF M.A. REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO CIT V. SMT. GUNAWANTI BAI, 219 ITR 32. THEREFORE, PRESENT M.A. IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FIL ED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ADMITTE D DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THIS M.A. IN TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DISMISS THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICA TION OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.2.20 13. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED : 19 .2.2013 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR 4 5