SMT. JAMILA BANU, Bhadohi V. ACIT, Bhadohi

CO 101/ALLD/1988

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9395 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 32 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-1988
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 201; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH , ALLAHABAD [ THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ] BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C.O. NO. 101/ALLD/1988 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1986 - 87 IN I . T . A . NO . 1083/ALLD/1988 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1986 - 87 SMT. JAMILA BANU , EASTERN RUG MANUFACTURERS, JALALPUR , BHADOHI - 221401 V S . ACIT, BHADOHI, VARANASI PAN: ACBPA8214B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI A.K. SINGH , SR . D . R DATE OF HEARING 27 /0 7 /2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 /07 / 2021 O R D E R VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED. 22 ND JULY, 1988 OF CIT (APPEAL) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1986 - 87. 2 . THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE WERE EARLIER DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED. 17 TH NOVEMBER, 1992. T HE MATTER WAS TAKEN TO HONBLE HIGH COURT BY WAY OF REFERENCE ON CERTAIN ISSUES AND CONSEQUENTLY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 13 TH AUGUST, 1996 DIRECTED THE TRIBUNAL TO RE - DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER GIVING PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. C.O. NO. 101/ALLD/1988 ITA NO. 1083/ALLD / 1988 2 THEREAFTER, THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DT. 17 TH DECEMB ER, 2001 AGAIN DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE SAID ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DT. 17 TH SEPTEMBER, 2001 WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE MATTER WAS AGAIN REMINDED BACK TO THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR FRESH ADJU DICATION VIDE ORDER DT. 19 TH JULY, 2016. THIS TRIBUNAL THEN, DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AS WELL AS C.O. VIDE ORDER DT. 17 TH APRIL, 201 7. THE ASSESSEE THEN, FILED MA NO. 18/ALLD/2017 FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DT. 28 TH J ANUARY, 2021 THIS TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED THE M. A. ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, OWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THE GROUND NO. 8 AND 9 OF THE CO WERE NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE ORDER DATED 17 TH APRIL, 2 017. ACCORDINGLY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF THE M.A. VIDE ORDER DT. 28 TH JAN, 2021 RECALL THE O R DER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT. 17 TH APRIL, 2017 FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUND NO. 8 AND 9 OF C.O. 3 . NOW THE C.O. WERE LISTED BEFORE THE BENCH FOR ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO. 8 AND 9 WHICH REPRODUCE AS UNDER: 8 . BECAUSE THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE CORRECTLY THE ADDITIONS MADE BETWEEN 14.8.1985 TO THE DATE OF INSPECTION MADE BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUE, THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITIONS TO THIS EXTENT IS ILLEGAL AN APPEAL AGAINST THIS HAS BEEN PREFERRED ON 21.9.1988. 9. BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT IN RESPECT OF THE COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING WHICH WAS SHOWN AND VALUED UPTO 14.8.1986. A.Y. 1 986 - 87 INSTEAD OF 1987 - 88. 4 . NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE REPEATED NOTICES AND OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN. ACCORDINGLY, THE BENCH PROPOSED TO DISPOSE OF THE GROUND NO. 8 AND 9 OF THE C.O. IN EX - PARTE HEARING. C.O. NO. 101/ALLD/1988 ITA NO. 1083/ALLD / 1988 3 5 . WE HAVE H EARD, THE LD. DR. AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD . T HE LD. DR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE GROUND NO. 8 AND 9 OF THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DT. 17 TH NOV EMBER, 1992 ITSELF AND THEREAFTER , THIS ISSUE WAS NEVER CHALLENGED BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES, HE HAS THUS, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS ALREADY DISPOSED OF AND ATTAINED FINALITY. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT S IN DIFFERENT PROCEEDINGS, WE NO TE THAT THE GROUND NO. 8 AND 9 OF THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DT. 17 TH NOV., 1992 IN PARA NO. 7. 6 . AS PER THE FINDING OF THIS TRIBUNAL THE V ALUATION DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (D V O) WAS FOUND TO BE PROPER AND REASONABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE FINDING OF THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DT. 17 TH N OV , 1992 ON THIS ISSUE . HENCE, THE FINDING OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE VIDE ORDER DT. 17 TH NOV, 1992 ATTAINED FINALITY AND CONSEQUENTLY THE GROUND NO. 8 AND 9 OF CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, STAND DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND NO. 8 AND 9 OF THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISM ISSED. THE O RDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ON 29 /07/ 2021. SD / - SD/ - (RAMIT KOCHAR) (VIJAY PAL RAO) A CCOUNTANT M EMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ALLAHABAD DATED: 29 /0 7 /2021 KD . C.O. NO. 101/ALLD/1988 ITA NO. 1083/ALLD / 1988 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR, I.T.A.T. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER (I.T.A.T., ALLAHABAD) TRUE COPY