9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. All these Miscellaneous Applications were fixed for hearing today i.e., 05.06.2015; however, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and neither there was any request for adjournment. From the order sheet, we find 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 facts of all the four cases are also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of survey, the assessee i.e, M/s Jindal Fashion surrendered the sum of Rs. 30 lacs for excess stock and Rs. 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 Rs. 37,81,757/- in the case of assessee i.e, Jindal Fashion for Assessment Year 2003-04. The same was restricted to Rs. 9,21,538/- by the CIT (A). The Revenue was in appeal against the relief allowed by the CIT(A), while the assessee in the cross objections had challenged the addition sustained by the CIT(A). In the cross objection, the first ground raised by the assessee was against the validity of survey proceedings. The second ground ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a passing discussion on any ground, except when the assessee's Counsel says that the ground is not pressed, because, if the ground is to be argued, then it is to be argued by both the parties and there cannot be a passing discussion in respect of such ground. In view of above, we are of the opinion that additional ground, if any, was not pressed by the assessee at the time of hearing. Therefore, now in the 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. 5. The facts in the case of other three Miscellaneous Applications are also identical; therefore, for the detailed discussion above in respect of Miscellaneous Appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
