Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta,, Chandigarh v. ACIT,, Chandigarh

MA 51/CHANDI/2016 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 5121524 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN ABGPG3698B
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number MA 51/CHANDI/2016
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta,, Chandigarh
Respondent ACIT,, Chandigarh
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 13-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 13-11-2017
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 25-05-2016
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 51/CHD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 660/CHD/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) SH. AJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. THE ACIT CC-II CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ABGPG3698B M.A. NO. 52/CHD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 661/CHD/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) SH. VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. THE ACIT CC-II CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ABGPG3697Q M.A. NO. 53/CHD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 662/CHD/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) SH. ASHWANI KUMAR GUPTA VS. THE ACIT CC-II CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ABLPG9219P & M.A. NO. 54/CHD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 663/CHD/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) M/S VALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. THE ACIT CC-II CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAACV5195J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHWANI GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA 2 DATE OF HEARING : 08.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIONS HAS BEEN MOVED BY TH E ASSESSEES- APPLICANTS PLEADING THEREIN THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAS BEEN OCCURRED IN THE COMMON ORDER DATED 30.4.2014 OF THI S TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NOS. 660/CHD/2008 TO 663/CHD/2008/ 2. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEES IN THIS APP LICATION IS THAT THE REVENUE HAD MOVED TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED OBJECTION S AND THAT THE SAME WERE REQUIRED TO BE DECIDED BY SEPARATE ORDERS. HOWEVER THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO DISPOSE OF THE SAID APPLICATIONS FOR ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RELIED UPON THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE REVENUE WIT HOUT ALLOWING OR DISMISSING THE SAID APPLICATIONS BY WAY OF SEPARATE ORDERS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE LD DR H AS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE PARAS 34 35 36 & 37 OF ORDER DT 30.4.2014 OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE FACTUM OF FILING OF APPLICATIO N FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND OBJECTIONS THERETO RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE HAVE BEEN DULY DISCUSSED IN DETAIL. FURTHER IN SUBSEQUENT PARAS OF THE ORDER THERE IS A DETAILED DISCUSSION NOT ONLY OF THE FACTS OF THE CA SE BUT ALSO REGARDING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS. FURTHER IN PARA 53 OF THE ORD ER THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SOUGHT TO BE FURNISHED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISCUS SED IN DETAIL THE 3 CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE OBJECTIONS OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF THE SAID ADDITION AL EVIDENCE. THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EACH OF THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN EXAM INED. SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE ADMITTED IN EVIDE NCE AND THE REMAINING HAVE BEEN REJECTED FOR ADMISSION AS ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE PASSED A SEPARATE ORD ER ALLOWING OR DISMISSING THE APPLICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ABOVE CONTENTION. THE PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL ARE SUMMARY IN NATURE. EACH AND EVERY OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAS BEEN THOROUGH LY DISCUSSED AND FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY IN EVIDENCE OF EACH AND EVERY DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE FURNISHED AND RELIED UP ON BY THE REVENUE. A DETAILED DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACTS / DOCUMENTS AND RELEVANT CASE LAWS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ORDER DT 30.4.14 WHICH RUNS INTO 8 8 PAGES. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OUT AS TO WHICH OF HIS SUBMISSIONS OR OBJECTIONS HAS REMAINED UN-ADJUDICATED IN THE SAID DETAILED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT I N THIS MISC. APPLICATIONS AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.11.2017 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 13.11.2017 RKK 4 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR