2014 (1) TMI 333 - AT - Income Tax

Maintainability of Application - Recall of order Held that - Assessee contended that correct facts were not provided by the authorities below and also by the Tribunal - The perusal of the records of Miscellaneous Application reflect no such synopsis having been annexed with the Miscellaneous Application by the assessee or the counsel of the assessee - Following Bhawarlal C.Bafna V ACIT 2002 (6) TMI 40 - MADRAS High Court - adjournments are not matter of right and once many adjournments are taken, the Tribunal could take note of conduct of the party and refuse the adjournment in its discretion - the Tribunal was correct in refusing to grant further adjournment as the matter had been adjourned on several occasions - the assessee has failed to point out any defect in the order passed by the Tribunal Decided against Assessee.

Issues:
Recalling of Tribunal order in ITA No.218/Chd/2011 dated 13.12.2012 for assessment year 2007-08.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Recalling of Tribunal Order:
The applicant filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking the recalling of the Tribunal's order in ITA No.218/Chd/2011 dated 13.12.2012 related to the assessment year 2007-08. The applicant's grievance was that the appeal was decided ex-parte against the assessee due to the counsel's unavailability. The applicant cited reasons for adjournment requests made earlier, which were rejected by the Bench. The applicant highlighted the counsel's health issues and previous adjournments.

2. Chronology of Adjournments:
The order-sheet entries revealed a series of adjournments requested by the counsel for the assessee on various dates. Despite multiple adjournments, the matter was eventually decided on 05.12.2012 in the absence of the assessee's representation. The issue pertained to the disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, focusing on interest-free loan accounts and interest expenditure claims. The CIT(Appeals) had made certain decisions favoring the assessee but upheld disallowances for lack of evidence in specific cases.

3. Miscellaneous Application and Tribunal Decision:
The applicant, in the Miscellaneous Application, argued that correct facts were not presented by the lower authorities and the Tribunal. However, no supportive synopsis or judgments were annexed as claimed. During the hearing, the assessee's representative failed to identify any defects in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal, considering the conduct of the parties and the precedent set by the Madras High Court, dismissed the Miscellaneous Application, emphasizing that adjournments are not an absolute right.

4. Dismissing the Application:
The Tribunal, in its order dated 13.12.2012, had thoroughly examined the case based on the documents provided by the assessee and lower authorities. As the assessee's representative could not point out any flaws in the Tribunal's decision, the Miscellaneous Application was deemed meritless and subsequently dismissed. The Tribunal upheld its previous decision on the merits of the case, leading to the dismissal of the applicant's request for recalling the order.

5. Final Decision:
After considering all the arguments and circumstances, the Tribunal found no justification to entertain the Miscellaneous Application from the assessee. Citing the Madras High Court's ruling on adjournments, the Tribunal maintained its stance on refusing further adjournments due to previous requests and the conduct of the parties involved. The Tribunal reiterated that the decision made in the order dated 13.12.2012 was sound and valid, leading to the dismissal of the applicant's plea.

The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Miscellaneous Application was based on the grounds of previous adjournments, lack of new evidence or defects pointed out by the assessee, and adherence to legal precedents regarding adjournments. The detailed analysis of the case provided insights into the chronology of events leading to the Tribunal's original decision and the subsequent rejection of the applicant's request for recalling the order.

← Previous Next →