2013 (6) TMI 797

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee states in the petition that its counsel was undergoing physiotherapy due to fall from stairs. 3. Citing Rule 25 of Appellate Tribunal Rules. 1963, ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the order of the Tribunal had to be recalled. As per the learned A.R., the only requirement under proviso to Rule 25 is that respondent 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 prope....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1961 (in short 'the Act'). 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 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 S....