A.D.Sendhureswaran, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITSSA 83/CHNY/1997

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9181 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 13 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-1997
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Block assessment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI PRADEEP PARIKH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) .. I.T.(SS) A. NO. 83/MDS97 BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1992-93 TO 1996-97 SHRI A.D. SENDHURESWARAN M-26, 10 TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 102. PAN : AAUPA6774M (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II(4), CHENNAI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.3.1997 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WI TH SECTION 158BC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS 1986-87 TO 1996-97 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER, SHRI A.N. DYANESWARA N. 2. SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE RE VENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT IN VIEW OF THE M.P. ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M.P. NO.304/MDS/ 2006 DATED 31-05-2010, MORE SPECIFICALLY IN PARA 4 OF THE SAID ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS : IT(SS)A NO.83/MDS/97 2 4. NOW, COMING TO THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF TH E ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1992-93 TO 1996-97 WHICH COMPRISED THE ENTIRE BLOCK PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY GOT KAR SAMADHAN U NDER KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME. IN FACT, SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE I N THE HANDS OF SHRI A.N. DYANESWARAN, THE FATHER OF SHRI A.D. SENTHURESWARA N AS DETAILED IN THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN M.P. NO.21/MDS/2010 FOR BLOCK PERIOD 1992- 93 TO 1996-97. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED B Y THE DESIGNATED AUTHORITY VIZ. CIT(CENTRAL)-II, CHENNAI, UNDER THE KAR VIVAD SAMAD HAN SCHEME DATED 25-1- 1999 BY DETERMINING THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE BY THE ASSE SSEE/PETITIONER RELATING TO THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND A CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO .3 DATED 20-4-1999 UNDER KVSS IN RESPECT OF SHRI A.D. SENTHURESWARAN WAS ALR EADY RECEIVED BY HIM. SINCE A FACTUAL MISTAKE CREPT INTO THE ORDER AS ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY AVAILED THE BENEFIT OF KVSS THIS GLARING AND PATENT MISTAKE MAKE OUT A CLEAR CASE OF APPARENT MISTAKE HAVING CREPT INTO THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THERE FORE, U/S 254(2), THIS ORDER NEEDS TO BE RECALLED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREAD Y SUFFERED TAX AND SETTLED THE DISPUTE IN THE LIGHT OF SECTION 90(2) OF KVSS, DEEMED AS WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEALS ON THE DATE OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED. THIS MI STAKE SEEMS TO HAVE CREPT INADVERTENTLY BECAUSE I.T.(SS) A ORDER AND NORMAL O RDERS OF ASSESSMENT WERE COMBINED WHEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED TO FRAME SU BSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN SETTLED. WE, THEREFORE, RECALL TH E TRIBUNAL ORDER AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX ALL THE APPEAL IN I.T.(SS) A. NO.83 /MDS/97 FOR FRESH HEARING IN REGULAR MANNER. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOU S. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS KAR VIVAD SAMADHAN SCHEME HAS BEEN OPTED F OR AND ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI A.N. DYANESWARAN, THI S APPEAL NO MORE SURVIVES. 5. IN REPLY THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I TSELF WAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS INFRUCTUOUS ON THAT GROUND ITSELF. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE M.P. ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED ABOVE THAT KVSS HAS BEEN APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER AND THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL HAVE ALREADY BEEN IT(SS)A NO.83/MDS/97 3 CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER AN D THE ASSESSEES FATHER HAS ALSO BEEN ALLOWED TO PROCEED UNDER KVSS AND ON THIS GROUND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS INFRUCTUOUS. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESS EE WOULD HAVE NO CAUSE OF ACTION TO FILE THIS APPEAL INSOFAR AS THERE IS NO A SSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DR. IN EITHER CASE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND CONSEQUE NTLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 7. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 07-07-2 010. SD/- SD/- (PRADEEP PARIKH) (GEORGE MATHAN) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 7TH JULY, 2010. H. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE