Syed Murtuza, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward 7(2), Hyderabad

ITA 1813/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6532 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SITARAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T CHAITANYA KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.1813/HYD/2013 : ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008- 09 ITA NO.750/HYD/2014 : ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-0 6 SHRI SYED MURTUZA, HYDERABAD (PAN ADRPS 6026 J) V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.CHAITANYA KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.SITARAM DR DATE OF HEARING 8.6.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8.6.2016 O R D E R THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PAS SED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) 6 , HYDERAB AD IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2008-09. 2. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, APPEAL FILED ON 25.4.2014, WAS SIGNED ON 10 TH MARCH, 2014 BY SMT. SHAHENSHAH BEGUM, WHO HAS MERELY AFFIXED HER LEFT HAND THUMB I MPRESSION ON FORM 36, THOUGH THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS SHRI SY ED MURTAZA. IN FORM NO.36, NAME OF THE APPELLANT IS SHOWN AS SHRI SYED MURTUZA AND THE LEGAL HEIRS NAME IS NOT MENTIONED AND EVEN IN THE VERIFICATION, IT WAS MENTIONED AS UNDER- I, SYED MURTUZA, THE APPELLANT, DO HEREBY DECLAR E THAT WHAT IS STATED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY INFO RMATION AND BELIEF. ITA NO.1813/H/2013 & ANR SHRI SYED MURTAZA, HYDERABAD 2 HOWEVER, IN THE SIGNATURE PLACE, THE THUMB IMPRESSI ON OF SMT. SHAHENSHAH BEGUM WAS AFFIXED WITH A MENTION THAT SH E IS THE LEGAL HEIR. IT APPEARS THAT SHRI B. NARSING RAO, CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT IS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, WHO HAS FILED HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, AND HE HAS ALSO AFFIXED HIS SIGNATURE IN FORM 36, AFFIRMING THE FACT THAT SMT SHASHENSHAH BEGUM IS THE LEGAL HEIR, THOUGH LEGAL HEIR WAS NOT SPECIF ICALLY BROUGHT ON RECORD. IN THE POWER OF ATTORNEY, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SMT. SHAHENSHA BEGUM IS THE LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI SYED MURT UZA. THOUGH DEFECT MEMO WAS ISSUED ON VARIOUS COUNTS, TILL DATE NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT ALSO DESERVES TO BE MENTIONED THA T THOUGH SHRI B.NARSING RAO FILED HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE AP PEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, SHRI T.CHAITANYA KUMAR HAS BEEN REPRE SENTING THE MATTER FROM TIME TO TIME, WITHOUT EVEN A POWER OF A TTORNEY. 3. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, APPEAL WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SY ED MURTAZA, BUT THE IMPRESSIONS AFFIXED THEREIN DO NOT SPECIFY WHETHER THEY ARE THE LEFT HAND THUMB IMPRESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE IMPRES SION OF SOME OTHER FINGER OF THE ASSESSEE, OR OF ANY OTHER PERS ON, IF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALIVE EVEN BY THE TIME THE APPEAL FOR THIS YEAR WAS FILED IN 2013. LEARNED COUNSEL, SHRI B.NARSING RAO HAS ALSO OBTAINED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE SAME FASHION WITHOUT SPECIFYING AS TO WHETHER IT WAS FINGER IMPRESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR THAT OF ANY OT HER PERSON CLAIMING TO BE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE, IF THE ASSESSEE W AS ALIVE AT THAT POINT OF TIME. SINCE IN THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06, FILED IN 2014, IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NO L ONGER ALIVE, AND THE LEGAL HEIR HAS TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROSE CUTE THE APPEAL, EVEN IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE AR SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE ITA NO.1813/H/2013 & ANR SHRI SYED MURTAZA, HYDERABAD 3 L/R ON RECORD OR OUGHT TO HAVE PROVED THAT THE APP EAL WAS FILED BY SHRI SYED MURTAZA. 4. BUT TILL DATE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COME FORWA RD TO RECTIFY THE DEFECTS. SHRI T.CHAITANYA KUMAR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PASSED AWAY ON 23.2.2014 AND REQUESTED FOR TIME TO BRING THE LEGAL HEIRS ON RECORD. SINCE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES WER E GIVEN, A FINAL CHANCE WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY ADJOURNING THE APPEAL FR OM 24.8.2014 TO 9.12.2015 TO 17.3.2016. EVEN AFTER MORE THAN TWO YE ARS THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT R ECTIFY THE DEFECTS AND ASSESSEES COUNSEL AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT, AN D THUS THE APPEALS WERE FINALLY POSTED FOR HEARING ON 8.6.2016 . AGAIN SHRI CHAITYANYA KUMAR APPEARED AND REQUESTED FOR SOME MO RE TIME ON THE GROUND THAT THEY HAVE TO VERIFY AS TO WHO WAS THE L EGAL REPRESENTATIVE. WHEN POINTED OUT THAT SMT.SHAHENSHAH BEGUM HAS BE EN REFERRED TO AS LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI SYED MURTAZA, HE SUBMITTED TH AT THERE MAY BE OTHER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OR SHE MAY NOT BE THE L EGAL REPRESENTATIVE. IF THERE ARE OTHER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, THEN IT I S THE DUTY OF THE PERSON WHO HAS FILED THE APPEAL TO BRING THEM ON RE CORD, AS OTHERWISE, THE APPEALS CANNOT BE PROSECUTED. 5. AS PER THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE I.T. RULES, DEFECTS, IF ANY, HAVE TO BE RECTIFIED WITHIN 10 DAY S, BUT EVEN AFTER MORE THAN TWO YEARS, THE DEFECTS ARE NOT RECTIFIED IN THESE CASES. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE PARTIES ARE NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS. AT THE OUTSET, THESE APP EALS DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WERE NOT FILE D IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RULES. IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UNDER RULE 12 OF THE APPELLATE TRI BUNAL RULES, THESE APPEALS FILED HEREIN ARE REJECTED AT THE ADMISSION STAGE. EVEN ITA NO.1813/H/2013 & ANR SHRI SYED MURTAZA, HYDERABAD 4 OTHERWISE, ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GROUNDS URGED BEFORE THIS BENCH. NO MATERIAL IS PLACED TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). T HUS, BOTH ON MERITS AND ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE DISMISSED. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE COURT AT THE CONCLU SION OF HEARING ON 8 TH JUNE, 2016 \ (D.MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 8 TH JUNE, 2016 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI SYED MURTUZA, C/O. M/S. B.NARSING RAO & CO. , CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, PLOT NO.554,ROAD NO.92, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD 500 096. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7 ( 2 ), HYDERABAD 3. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) VI, HYDERABAD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 6, HYDERABAD 5 . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT, HYDERABAD B.V.S. 1. DATE OF DICTATION 8.6.2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER 3. !' #$ & ( / & ( DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SENIO R P.S. 4. ( . DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 8.6.2016 5. ( #$ & ( / & ( DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER GOES TO THE SR. P.S. 6. .4 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK. 7. 7 .4 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 8. . 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGIST RAR 9. DATE OF THE DESPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER