TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 797X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision has been reached by the Tribunal on merits and no glaring or apparent mistake whatsoever is shown therein, it is still to be recalled. Tribunal had taken a view that assessee was not eligible for a deduction under Section 80-IA after taking into account all the aspects relating to the case. Assessee admittedly was only a partnership and not a limited company. As per the Revenue, assessee was only executing civil work for different organizations on contract basis. Considering these aspects, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that assessee being not a company registered in India, it could not avail of the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act. Tribunal also came to correct factual finding that nothing was on record to show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent should satisfy the Tribunal on the cause of his non-appearance. This onus cast on the assessee has been properly discharged. Further, as per the learned A.R., due to fault of a counsel, an assessee should not be put on peril. Learned A.R. also pointed out that the Tribunal was an institution of correction. Learned A.R. also submitted that there was a mistake in the order of the Tribunal, it having failed to properly consider sub-clause (a) of clause (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 80-IA. According to him, deduction under Section 80-IA(4) is available to any body established or constituted under Centre or State and Act and assessee being a partnership firm had to be construed as a body established under the Partnership Act, eligible f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, it could not avail of the deduction under Section 80-IA(4) of the Act. Tribunal also came to a factual finding that nothing was on record to show that the agreement entered by the assessee with Central Government, State Government, Local Authority or any statutory body were for developing any infrastructural facilities. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Harichand Shri Gopal [2011] 1 SCC 236. Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DMI Foundations v. DIT(E) [IT Appeal No. 185 (Mds.) of 2012, dated 15-4-2013] had also taken a similar view. Argument of the learned A.R. that partnership firm was a body established or constituted under a Centre or State Act cannot be accepted fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the statute under which the rules are formulated. Rules cannot be considered as a handmaid, for helping reticent and negligent assessees and their counsels, who chose to sleep despite receipt of hearing notices. No rule, in our opinion, can give an assessee any right, which has its origin in their own laxity. 7. Assessee has not been able to show any mistake in the order of the Tribunal nor any reasonable cause for its non-appearance. Assessee is only seeking a review of the Tribunal order, which was passed on merits. Reliance on Rule 25 of Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 cannot be used as a ploy to circumvent the process of rendering justice, when a reasoned decision has been reached by the Tribunal. Cases relied on by the ld. counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
