Shri Gopal Das Sharma S/o Shri Kishandas, Sehore V. The I.T.O., Bhopal

MA 13/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4924 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 30-07-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY SODANI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.KAUSHIK, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : - M.A.NO. 13/IND/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 184/IND/2002) A.Y. : 1989-90 SHRI GOPALDAS SHARMA, CIT, SEHORE VS MADHYA PRADESH, BHOPAL. APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI SANJAY SODANI, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, SR. DR O R D E R PER B. R. KAUSHIK, A.M. THE ASSESSEE FILED MISC. APPLICATION ON 11 TH APRIL, 2010, AGAINST THE DECISION DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2002, IN I.T.A.NO. 184/IND/2002. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, CONT ENDED THAT THE MISC. PETITION HAS BEEN FILED IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER DATED 19.8.2008 OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. POINTED OUT THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECT IN SO F AR AS THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT HE DID NOT INTEND T O PRESS GROUND NO.2 OF - 2 - 2 THE APPEAL IN M.A.I.T. NO.11/2003 AND IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1, HE INTENDED TO FILE APPLICATION U/S 254 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT,1961, BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT ON LY OBSERVED THAT IT WAS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE SUCH APPLICATION W ITHIN PARAMETERS OF LAW AND, THUS, WITH DUE RESPECT, OBVIOUSLY THE MISC. AP PLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF T HE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, BECAUSE THE FILING OF AP PLICATION WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF LAW WAS LEFT OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED ON 21 ST APRIL, 2010, AGAINST THE I.T.A.T. ORDER DATED 30 TH OCT.,2002, AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT OF FOUR YEARS. THE LD. COUNSE L SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. WAS DATED 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2007. THIS SUBMISSION IS NOT FOUND TO BE CORRECT, BECAUSE THIS BENCH AS PER ORDER DATED `13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2007, HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE DEPA RTMENT IN I.T.A.NOS. 206 & 207/IND/2002 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1989-90 AND 1990-91 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE MISC. PETITION IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2002, AND BEYOND TIME. IT IS ALSO SEEN FRO M THE MISC. APPLICATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE I N THE AFORESTATED ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. AND HAS ONLY SUBMITTED THAT THE MIS C. APPLICATION WAS FILED IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT, WHICH IS NOT CORRECT AS - 3 - 3 DISCUSSED ABOVE. IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE E ARNEST MONEY OF RS.1.50 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED IN FEBRUARY, 1988, AND THE LICENCE FEE, THE EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT AND BANK GUARANTEE WERE LIKEL Y TO BE DEPOSITED BEFORE THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE TRADE OF LIQ UOR HAD TAKEN PLACE AND, THUS, THE INITIAL INVESTMENT HAD BEEN MADE BEFORE T HE FINANCIAL YEAR AND THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. WAS REQUIRED TO BE RECTIF IED. NOTWITHSTANDING, THE FACT THAT THE MISC. APPLICATION IS TIME BARRED, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE NATURE OF REQ UEST FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. AND THE LD. COUNSEL, DURING T HE COURSE OF HEARING, FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. DATED 30 TH OCTOBER, 2002, IN I.T.A.NOS. 184 & 185/IND/2002 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 AND 1990-91, WHICH SUFFERED FROM THE MISTAK E APPARENT FROM RECORD. THUS, NOT ONLY THE MISC. PETITION IS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME BARRED, BUT IT IS ALSO DEVOID OF MERIT. 5. THE MISC. PETITION IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. - 4 - 4 THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH AUGUST, 2010. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (B. R. KAUSHIK) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 5 TH AUGUST, 2010. CPU* 30748