Shri Pravinbhai H.Patel, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 2066/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3797 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: DismissedDismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2011

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD Before Shri A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and Shri KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2066/Ahd/2011 & 1906/ Ahd/2012 (Assessment year 2003-04) Shri Pravinbhai H Patel, 20, Ghanshyam Nagar, Viratnagar Road, Odhav, Ahmedabad Vs. ACIT, CC-2(3), Ahmedabad PAN/GIR No. : AFXPP6325F (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Smt. Rolee Agrawal, CIT DR Date of hearing: 11.04.2013 Date of pronouncement: 30.04.2013 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- Both these appeals are filed by the same assessee for the same assessment year but are directed against two separate orders of Ld. CIT(A) III, Ahmedabad dated 30.06.2011 and 04.07.2012. 2. Earlier, this appeal was fixed for hearing on several occasions but hearing was adjourned on the request of the Ld. A.R. Thereafter, the hearing was fixed on 11.02.2013. On this date again, an application was made by the Ld. A.R. Shri Prashant B Shah, Advocate for adjournment. The reasons given in the application for seeking adjournment are as under: “Reference the appeals, it is requested to grant an adjournment as the undersigned is out of town on the day for social unavoidable reasons.” I.T.A.No. 2066 /Ahd/2011 I.T.A.No. 1906/Ahd/2012 2 3. On earlier date also i.e. for the hearing fixed on 18.02.2013, similar application for adjournment was made by the same Ld. A.R. Shri Prashant B Shah as per letter dated 17.02.2013 and the contents of this letter are also reproduced below for the sake of ready reference: “Reference the appeal, it is requested to grant a week’s adjournment as the undersigned would be out of town for certain personal reasons.” 4. From both these applications of the Ld. A.R. seeking adjournments, it is clear that the adjournment is sought for by him on vague reasons. Moreover, on this date of hearing i.e. on 11.04.2013, neither Ld. A.R. nor any competent representative was present in the court room for pursuing this adjournment application and even no other authorized person was present i.e. a proxy counsel and one Mr. Jivrajbhai B Divecha who is stated to be a clerk with B H Shah & Co. appeared to pursue this adjournment application. On inquiry, it was stated by him that he is only metric pass and is employed with B H Shah & Co. on a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. It comes out that he is not an authorized person for appearing before the Tribunal even for pursuing this adjournment application. Hence, adjournment application of the Ld. A.R. is rejected and the appeals are being decided ex-parte qua the assessee. 5. Before proceeding further, we would like to note down the brief facts of the case to understand the reasons for having two appeals of the assessee for the same assessment year. It is noted by Ld. CIT(A) in para 2 of his subsequent order dated 04.07.2012 that in this case, an appellate order was passed by him on 30.06.2011. Against this order, the department as well as the assessee preferred appeals before the Tribunal. It is also noted that the assessee raised additional grounds before the I.T.A.No. 2066 /Ahd/2011 I.T.A.No. 1906/Ahd/2012 3 Tribunal regarding the validity of the reassessment order u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act and the same was raised by the assessee for the first time. It is further noted that the Tribunal vide order dated 11.05.2012, restored the appeals to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has drawn this conclusion from this tribunal order that the only issue restored by the Tribunal to the file of Ld. CIT(A) was to decide the validity of reassessment proceedings. This issue was decided by Ld. CIT(A) against the assessee as per this impugned order dated 04.07.2012 and the second appeal i.e. I.T.A.No. 1906/Ahd/2012 has been filed by the assessee against this order of Ld. CIT(A). 6. In the meantime, the assessee moved miscellaneous application before the Tribunal in which it was contended by the assessee that as per the Tribunal order in I.T.A.No. 2066/Ahd/2011 dated 11.05.2012, the Tribunal has decided the issue regarding validity of reassessment order raised by the assessee as per additional grounds of appeal and the matter has been restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) but main grounds of the assessee as per appeal memo were note decided by the Tribunal. In the miscellaneous application No.139/Ahd/2012 dated 19.10.2012, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order in I.T.A.No. 2066/Ahd/2011 dated 11.05.2012 to the limited extent of disposing off other grounds of appeal relating to the merits or additions and hence, in this manner, the earlier appeal of the assessee being I.T.A.No. 2066/Ahd/2011 is also before us for deciding the issue on merit of various additions. 7. First of all, we would like to note and bring on record that a paper book containing 1044 pages is available on record but the same is not as per the Tribunal rules because in the Index of the paper book, there is no certificate given by the assessee as to whether these pages in the paper book were furnished before the authorities below and if yes, then which paper was furnished with which authority. Moreover, as per sub-rule 6 of I.T.A.No. 2066 /Ahd/2011 I.T.A.No. 1906/Ahd/2012 4 Rule 18 of Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, only those documents which are referred to and relied upon by the parties during the course of argument shall alone be treated as part of record of the Tribunal. As per sub Rule 7 of Rule 18, it is also prescribed that the papers /paper book not confirming to sub-Rules 1-6 of rule 18 are liable to be ignored. In the present case, the assessee has neither complied with sub-rule 7 of rule 18 nor with sub-rule 1-6 of Rule 18 and hence, this paper book filed by the assessee cannot be treated as part of the record of the Tribunal and the same is liable to be ignored as per sub-rule 6 & 7 of Rule 18 of Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. We, therefore, ignore the same. 8. As per above discussion, we have seen that there is no valid paper book on record and there is nobody present before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee to make any argument in respect of these two appeals of the assessee. When we go through both these orders of Ld. CIT(A), we do not find any flaw in the same and hence, we decline to interfere in both these orders of Ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are dismissed. 10. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned hereinabove. Sd./- Sd./- (KUL BHARAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sp Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT Concerned 4. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) 5. The DR, Ahmedabad By order 6. The Guard File AR,ITAT,Ahmedabad I.T.A.No. 2066 /Ahd/2011 I.T.A.No. 1906/Ahd/2012 5 1. Date of dictation...29/04/2013 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member...29/04/2013.Other Member ............ 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 Dictating Member for pronouncement ...30/04/2013 5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S.30/04 6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk ...30/04/2013 7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk ....................... 8. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order ......................... 9. Date of Despatch of the order. ......................