Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 1626 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

2015 (10) TMI 1626 - ITAT AHMEDABAD - TMI - Rectification of mistake - additional grounds of appeal filed by the assessee with reference to Cross Objection were not considered by the ITAT - Held that:- The ITAT, after the considering the arguments of the both the sides, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and the ground No. 2 of the assessee’s cross objection which was with regard to addition sustained by the CIT(A). In paragraph 9, the ITAT has mentioned that ground No. 1 of the assessee’s cross obj .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 the Miscellaneous Application, the only assertion by the ass .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. - Decided against assessee. - MA Nos. 100/Ahd/2012 & 10/Ahd/2013, CO No.226/Ahd/2007, ITA No. 2580/Ahd/2007, MA Nos.99/Ahd/2012 & 09/Ahd/2013, CO No. & 225/Ahd/2007,ITA No.2579/Ahd/2007 - Dated:- 19-6-2015 - G. D. Agrawal, VP And Kul Bharat, JM,JJ. For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. DR ORDER .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 fact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lso perused the common order of the ITAT passed in all the four appeals. From the perusal of the records, we find that in our record in Cross Objection No. 100/Ahd/2012, there is no application for the additional grounds which is claimed to have been filed by the assessee. Moreover, in the Miscellaneous Applications the assessee mentioned as under:- "4. During the course of appeal hearing, the main discussion centered round the grounds filed by the department and related cross objection wit .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e s business premises. During the course of survey, the assessee i.e, M/s Jindal Fashion surrendered the sum of ₹ 30 lacs for excess stock and ₹ 4 lacs 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s, dismissed the Revenue s appeal and the ground No. 2 of the assessee s cross objection which was with regard to addition sustained by the CIT(A). In paragraph 9, the ITAT has mentioned that ground No. 1 of the assessee s cross objection is not pressed by the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing. From the above, the clear indication is that the only argument from both the side was with regard to the addition partly reduced by the CIT(A). There was no other ground in the Revenue s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version