Parshotam Dass (Deceased), Pehowa vs Assessee

Sh.Parshotam Dass (Deceased), Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Through L/H Prop. M/s Sharda Ward-1, Ram Satpal, Kurukshetra. Shop No.5, Anaj Mandi, Pehowa. PAN: AANPD-8214E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Applicant by : None Respondent by : Shri Manjit Singh, DR

Date of hearing : 01.05.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 06.05.2015

PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. :

The applicant filed the present Miscellaneous

Application for recalling of the earlier order dated 20.9.2013.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that in this case

ex-parte assessment order was passed against the applicant.

The Assessing Officer made two additions of Rs.57,400 and

Rs.22,267/- totaling to Rs.79,667/-. The applicant

challenged the order and the additions before the learned CIT

(Appeals) and also requested for admission of the additional

evidences because of the ex-parte order passed by the 2

Assessing Officer. The learned CIT (Appeals) rejected the

request for admission of additional evidences and also

dismissed the appeal of the applicant.

3. The record revealed that the appeal was taken by

the Tribunal on 1.7.2013 and applicant's counsel Shri

G.Sagar, advocate appeared before the Tribunal and the

appeal was adjourned to 17.7.2013. On 17.7.2013 none

appeared on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, the appeal

was adjourned to 2.9.2013. The applicant was notified of the

date of hearing for 2.9.2013 through Regd. Post. However,

none appeared before the Tribunal on the date of hearing on

2.9.2013. The appeal of the applicant was, therefore, decided

ex-parte. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the

applicant directed that the additional evidences which are

available with the applicant needs to be considered before

adjudicating the issue raised in the appeal. In the interest

of justice, the matter was restored to the file of the Assessing

Officer with direction to adjudicate the issue while

considering the additional evidences available with the

applicant and accordingly, the appeal of the applicant was

allowed for statistical purposes vide order dated 20.9.2013.

4. The Miscellaneous Application of the applicant was

taken for hearing many times. However, none appeared on

behalf of the applicant. Notice was, therefore, sent through

the Revenue Department. The report of the ITO, Ward-2,

Kurukshetra is available, in which it is stated that as per

local enquiry, the family of the applicant has shifted to 3

Panipat without any address. Therefore, the notice was

served upon the advocate of the applicant, Shri G.Sagar on

22.4.2015 for the date of hearing fixed on 1.5.2015. The

service report is available on record. The applicant in the

Miscellaneous Application also has not provided any other

address for the purpose of service upon the legal heir of the

applicant.

5. In the Miscellaneous Application, it is stated that

the appeal was adjourned for 17.7.2013 and since the Bench

did not work and no notice was served upon the legal heir,

therefore, the matter may be recalled. The allegations are

wholly incorrect because on 1.7.2013 the appeal was

adjourned in the presence of learned counsel for applicant,

Shri G.Sagar, advocate for 17.7.2013 and the record also

revealed that on 17.7.2013, the Bench functioned and in the

absence of the applicant, representative, the appeal was

adjourned to 2.9.2013. It is also stated in the Miscellaneous

Application that the legal heir also submitted request for

fixation of the appeal on 30.10.2013. This allegation is also

incorrect because the appeal itself has been decided on

20.9.2013. Therefore, there is no question of fixing the

appeal on 30.10.2013. Moreover, no request on the side of

the applicant is available on record. It is further stated in

the Miscellaneous Application that the grounds of appeal

raised in Form No.36 are different. However, it may be stated

that though there may be some typographical mistake in

quoting the grounds of appeal but the additions made by the 4

Assessing Officer and issues of additional evidences were

considered by the Tribunal and the appeal was allowed for

statistical purposes in favour of the applicant. Therefore,

there is no mistake apparent from record of the Tribunal.

Thus the applicant has failed to make out any case for recall

of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.9.2013. It may be

stated here again that the appeal of the applicant was allowed

by directing the Assessing Officer to consider the additional

evidences, which is the main appeal of the applicant.

Therefore, the present Miscellaneous Application is wholly

frivolous and without basis and as such is liable to be

dismissed. Accordingly, we do not find any mistake apparent

from record. The Miscellaneous Application is accordingly

dismissed.

6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by

the applicant is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 6th day of

May, 2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated : 6 t h May, 2015

*Rati*

Copy to: The Appellant/The Respondent/The CIT(A)/The CIT/The DR.

Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh 5