M/s. Royal Stitches Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 775/CHNY/2002

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7891 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 40 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-1970
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D CHENNAI BEFORE DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO.774/MDS./02 A.Y : 1994-95 ITA NO.775/MDS./02 A.Y : 1995-96 M/S.ROYAL STITCHES PVT LTD., SAI BUSINESS POINT, II FLOOR, 17, MOUNT ROAD, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI 600 015. ( PAN NO.AAACR 1709 A) VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(5), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K E B RENGARAJAN JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, V.P. : THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . T HE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 1994-95 & 1995-96.. THE APPEA LS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDERS OF CIT(A)-V AT CHENNAI DATED 28.03.02 AND ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED U/S. 1 43(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. PAGE 2 OF 3 ITA. /MDS/ 2. EARLIER THESE APPEALS WERE DISCUSSED IN LIMINE BY THE TRIBUNAL THROUGH ITS ORDER DT.3 RD NOVEMBER, 2006 FOR THE DEFAULT OF NON- PROSECUTION. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED RESTORAT ION PETITIONS, WHICH WERE ALLOWED THROUGH THE ORDER DATED 7 TH MARCH, 2007. 3. THE APPEALS WERE HEARD AND DISPOSED THEREOF, SU BSEQUENTLY. 4. THEREAFTER REVENUE FILED RECTIFICATION PETITIO NS IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.374/MDS/09 AND MISCELLAN EOUS PETITION NO.58/MDS/10 PLEADING FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAK E APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL RECALLED ITS E ARLIER ORDER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DECIDING WHETHER INTEREST BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR INCOME F ROM BUSINESS AND IF UNDER THE LATTER HEAD WHETHER 90% THEREOF TO BE EXCLUDED UNDER EXPLANATION-(BAA) TO SEC.80HHC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. IT IS HOW THESE MATTERS ARE COMING BEFORE US FO R THE THIRD TIME. 6. WHEN THE APPEALS WERE CALLED ON FOR HEARING, TH E ASSESSEES COUNSEL FILED PETITIONS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS OUT OF STATION IN CONNECTION WITH SOME PROFESSIONAL WORK. NO OTHER DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE ADJOURNMENT PETITIONS. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED ON THE BONA FIDE OF THE REASON STATED IN THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION. ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITION IS DISMISSED. PAGE 3 OF 3 ITA. /MDS/ 7. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE VERY OLD APPEALS FILED YEARS BACK IN 2002. IN SPITE OF NOTICE AFTER NOTICE, THE ASSESSE E IS NOT APPEARING AND PRESENTING THE CASE AS REQUIRED UNDER LAW. IN THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THESE TWO APPEALS ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MONDAY TH E 22 ND OF NOVEMBER, 2010 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD /- ( HARI OM MARATHA ) ( DR.O.K.NARAYANAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2010. KSS COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE