TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the addition partly reduced by the CIT(A). There was no other ground in the Revenue’s appeal and in the assessee’s cross objection, though there were other grounds which were not pressed. When the regular grounds raised in the cross objections were not pressed except ground No. 2 of the cross objection, the question of pressing of the additional ground could not have arose. Moreover, on the record of the ITAT in the folder of cross objection there is no additional ground, though the assessee has furnished the copy of the additional ground alongwith Miscellaneous Applications. However, despite number of opportunities allowed by the ITAT to the assessee, none appeared on behalf of the assessee or if appeared, sought adjournment. Even in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee and neither there was any request for adjournment. From the order sheet, we find that these Miscellaneous Applications were filed by the assessee on 17.05.2012 and were fixed for hearing for the first time on 06.07.2012. Thereafter, hearing was adjourned time and again, mostly on account of either the absence of assessee s Counsel or at the request of the assessee s Counsel. In the above circumstances, we deem it proper to decide the Miscellaneous Applications ex-parte qua the assessee. Since in all these Miscellaneous Applications common requests have been made and the facts of all the four cases are also more or less identical, we deem it proper to consider herein below the facts in Miscellaneous Application No. 100/Ahd/2012 i.e, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for excess cash. However, in the return of income the assessee did not disclose the income as was surrendered during the course of survey. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 37,81,757/- in the case of assessee i.e, Jindal Fashion for Assessment Year 2003-04. The same was restricted to ₹ 9,21,538/- by the CIT (A). The Revenue was in appeal against the relief allowed by the CIT(A), while the assessee in the cross objections had challenged the addition sustained by the CIT(A). In the cross objection, the first ground raised by the assessee was against the validity of survey proceedings. The second ground was against the addition sustained by the CIT(A) and the third ground was against the charging of interest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... because, if the ground is to be argued, then it is to be argued by both the parties and there cannot be a passing discussion in respect of such ground. In view of above, we are of the opinion that additional ground, if any, was not pressed by the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, now in the Miscellaneous Application the assessee cannot claim that there is apparent mistake in the order of the ITAT. We, therefore, reject the assessee s Miscellaneous Application. 5. The facts in the case of other three Miscellaneous Applications are also identical; therefore, for the detailed discussion above in respect of Miscellaneous Application No.100/Ahd/2012, other three Miscellaneous Applications are also dismissed. 6. In the result, al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
