9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee has any grievance against the impugned order, proper course to agitate the same is by filing an appeal before the next appellate authority i.e. the Hon’ble High Court, but, not with the present application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld. A.R. has not got any right to dictate or contend that why the order has not been passed or relief has not been granted in accordance with his wishes. Since there was no mistake apparent on the record, it was advised to the Ld. A.R. that such type of frivolous applications should be avoided as it not only wastes the precious time of the litigants but also of this Tribunal and also results in financial burden upon the parties. Neither the Ld. A.R. could point out any mistake apparent on the record dated 22.08.2014 nor the Ld. A.R. could not satisfactorily explain as to why a cost should not be imposed for moving such type of frivolous application. Hence we deem it proper to impose a cost of ₹ 10,000/- each on the assessee for moving the above stated two miscellaneous applications. Decided against assessee. - ITA No.3696 & 3697/M/2012 - - - Dated:- 6-2-2015 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, And Shri Sanjay Garg, JJ. For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lications submitting that there is no error apparent on record in the order dated 22.08.14 of this Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival contentions of the Ld. Representatives of both the parties and have also gone through the records. The attention of Shri S.C. Tiwari, Ld. A.R of the assessee, was invited to para 5 of the order dated 22.08.2014, wherein, his contentions relating to arbitration award have been duly noted by the Tribunal. The said para 5 of the order dated 22.08.14 for the sake of ready reference is reproduced as under: 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee company was having its registered office in Mumbai and a branch office in Bengaluru. The Mumbai office was looked after by its director Shri Manoj Maganlal Hindocha whereas the Bengaluru branch office had been looked after by Shri Karm Sheel Oberoi. There was a dispute between the directors of the assessee company and because of that the accounts related to the Bengaluru branch office could not be submitted before the A.O. at the time of assessment proceedings. It has been further submitted that it was beyond the control of the director of the Mumbai office to submit the accounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in estimating the income of the Bengaluru office was correct and therefore was upheld. So far the income relating to Mumbai office was concerned, since the accounts were produced by the assessee in relation to Mumbai office, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) accepting the audited accounts in respect of Mumbai head office of the assessee company, have been upheld and the cross appeals of the Revenue on this issue have been dismissed. The relevant discussion relating to arbitration award and that the Revenue was not concerned with the internal dispute between the directors has been given in para 7 of the order which for the purpose of ready reference is reproduced as under: 7. We have heard the rival contentions and also perused the relevant material available on record. It is observed that there was a dispute between the directors of Mumbai office and Bengaluru branch office which resulted in appointment of Arbitrator and the copy of Arbitration award placed on record. It is further observed that the income in respect of Bengaluru office has been assessed in the hands of the company itself and not in the name of the dir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be rectified, if, it requires so. At this, the Ld. A.R. pointed out that along with the arbitration award, the Ld. A.R. during the hearing on merits had submitted that the matter should be restored to the AO having regard to the arbitration award dated 11.04.13. He has strongly contended that his said principal submission has been overlooked by the Tribunal. Since it was pointed out that when the contention relating to the arbitration award in respect of internal dispute between the directors of the assessee has been rejected itself, there was no question of remanding the matter to the AO on the basis of said arbitration award. At this, the Ld. A.R. has pointed that this Tribunal should have restored the matter to the file of the AO as has been contended by him during the hearing on merits of the appeal. The Ld. A.R. at this stage has been advised by us that his contentions relating to arbitration award were duly considered by the Tribunal and since the Tribunal was not satisfied with these contentions, hence the same were rejected by way of a speaking order. This Tribunal has decided the matter on merits as was deemed to be justified to the prudence of the Members of the Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
