C.V.Vadhirajan, Salem V. ACIT, Salem

ITA 653/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51727 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T S LAKSHMIVENKATARAMAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI A BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GE ORGE, A.M. I.T.A. NO. 653/MDS/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1992-93 C.V. VADHIRAJAN, NO.2A, NATWAR ARCADE, AGS COLONY, 4 TH MAIN ROAD, VELACHERI, CHENNAI 42. [PAN: ACXPV4149G] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE II, SALEM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 9 .08. 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09. 08.2011 ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), SALEM DATED 05.12.2008 RELEVANT TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1992-93. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER DECIDED BY THE BENCH ON 06.08.2010, WHICH ORDER CAME TO BE RECALLED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 17.06.2011 IN MP. NO. 74/MDS/2011. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN FILED LATE B Y 29 DAYS FOR WHICH DEFECT MEMO STANDS ALREADY ISSUED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME , THE ASSESSEE FILED PETITION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL SUPPOR TED BY AN AFFIDAVIT AND TAKING THE PLEA OF ILLNESS OF THE ASSESSEE. RELYING UPON THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.653 653653 653/MDS/0 /MDS/0 /MDS/0 /MDS/09 99 9 2 IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MISS KATIJA 167 ITR 471 AND BY FILING A COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 15.02.2010, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN FILING OF THE APPE AL BEYOND STIPULATED TIME. 3.1 TO THIS PLEA OF THE CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE L D. DR HAS RELIED UPON RELEVANT PROVISIONS, HOWEVER, DID NOT STRONGLY OBJECT IF DEL AY IS CONDONED. 3.2 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERING TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO LIMITATION ISSUE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS HE WAS NOT KEEPING WELL, HE HAS ALSO SUPPORTED SUCH SUBMISSION WITH THE AFFIDAVIT AS WELL AS MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. AS SUCH, WHILE ACCEPTING THE A PPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY O UTSET, VERY FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL WAS IN RELAT ION TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) BEING NOT WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT OF 1 2 MONTHS. BUT, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN NUMBER OF CASES HAS DE CIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING IN THE CASE OF CIT V. V.N. SOUND ARARAJAN AND OTHERS IN T.C.(A) NO. 1313 TO 1326 OF 2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 06.04.201 1 AND BY FILING XEROX COPY OF THE SAID DECISION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION, THE A PPEAL MAY BE DECIDED. 5. THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO SUCH PLEA RAISED B Y THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQ UARELY COVERED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND THE I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.653 653653 653/MDS/0 /MDS/0 /MDS/0 /MDS/09 99 9 3 APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, W HICH SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 6. AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERI NG THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AS WELL AS PRECEDENT RELIED UPON, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS ALSO TAKEN THE SAME VIEW AS PER ORDER DATED 06.04.2011 IN THE CASE OF CIT V. V.N. SOUNDARARAJAN AND OTHERS (SUPRA). THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SAID D ECISION, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEAR ING ON 09.08.2011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 09.08.2011 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.