V.V.N.Varadhan Kumar, CHENNAI V. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 14 , CHENNAI

MA 128/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0473 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SASI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: R S BALAJI
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 128/CHNY/2019 [IN I.T.A. NO. 1581/CHNY/2017 & CO NO. 125/CHNY/2017] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI V.V. N. VARADHAN KUMAR, NO. 6, 2 ND STREET, GILL NAGAR, CHOOLAIMEDU, CHENNAI 600 094. [PAN:AAQPV8253J] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 14, CHENNAI 600 034. (PETITIONER) (R ESPONDENT ) PETITIONER BY : SHRI R.S. BALAJI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. SASIKUMAR, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.09.2019 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY MEANS OF PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO RECALL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO.1581/CHNY/2017 & CO NO. 125/CHNY/2017 DATED 13.06.2018. 2. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER WAS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN SIMPLICITER WITHOUT SEEKING ANY LIBERTY TO FILE FRESH PETITION WITH SAME RELIEFS AND ON THE SAME GROUNDS RAISED IN THAT PETITION. THE ORDER FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE PETITION WAS ALLOWED TO BE MADE M.P. NO. 128/CHNY/19 2 WITHOUT SEEKING ANY LIBERTY TO FILE FRESH PETITION ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION. SUCH BEING THE ORDER, THE LD. DR WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE FRESH PETITION, HAVING BEEN FILED ON 11.06.2019, BE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI R.S. BALAJI, ADVOCATE, WHO HAS ALSO APPEARED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE EARLIER PETITION, COULD NOT GIVE ANY REPLY ON THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. DR. HOWEVER, THE LD. COUNSEL PLEADED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE PRESENT PETITION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL. VIDE M.P. NO. 194/CHNY/2018 FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1581/CHNY/2017 & CO NO. 125/CHNY/2017 DATED 07.12.2018, WHEREIN, UPON THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI R.S. BALAJI, ADVOCATE ON THE DAY OF HEARING ON 07.12.2018, THE TRIBUNAL PASSED THE ORDER AS UNDER: 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE DESIRES TO WITHDRAW THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. THE LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION FOR THE SAME. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, CONSIDERING THE PRAYER OF THE LD. AR, WE HEREBY DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WITHDRAWN. 5. FROM THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ORDER FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE PETITION WAS ALLOWED TO BE MADE WITHOUT SEEKING ANY LIBERTY TO FILE FRESH PETITION AND THUS, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. M.P. NO. 128/CHNY/19 3 6. OTHERWISE ALSO, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON 11.06.2019 FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.06.2018 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION, IN VIEW OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH ENABLE THE PARTIES TO SEEK RECTIFICATION WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION I.E., SIX MONTHS IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ORDER WAS PASSED/PRONOUNCED ON 13.06.2018 AND FROM THE END OF THE MONTH; THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTH EXPIRES ON 31.12.2018. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON 11.06.2019 RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED ON BOTH COUNTS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE MP FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 12 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (INTURI RAMA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 12.09.2019 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.