M/s. S.N. Constructions, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 15/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6695 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS S VIJAYA PRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: CHENNAI , ! ., ' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER , AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 15 / CHNY /20 18 (IN ITA NO.2779/CHNY/2016) #$ /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI S.N.CONSTRUCTIONS, SIDHARTH BUILDING, 169, HABIBULLAH ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI-600 017. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-2(1), CHENNAI-600 034. [PAN: ABIFS 8053 N ] ( % /APPELLANT) ( &'% /RESPONDENT) % ( / APPELLANT BY : MR.T.BANUSEKHAR, CA &'% ( /RESPONDENT BY : MRS.S.VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT # ( +, /DATE OF HEARING : 29.06.2018 $ ( +, /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.06.2018 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 04.05.2017 BECAUSE THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.2779/MDS/2016 WAS HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ORDE R PASSED EXPARTE DUE TO NONAPPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE/ASSESSEES REP RESENTATIVE. MP NO.15/CHNY/2018 (IN ITA NO.2779/CHNY/2016) :- 2 -: 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MISC ELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS PE R SEC.254 (2) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE MP IS FILED BEYOND SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED. 3. THE LD.AR ARGUED STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT AWARE OF THE DATE OF HEARING BECAUSE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE/ ASSESSEES REP RESENTATIVE COULD NOT BE PRESENT BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE DATE OF HEARING. HE FURTHER ARGUED STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO UNAWARE ABOUT TH E PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT SENT TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE NOTICE FOR HEARING THE APPE AL BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE H AD SHIFTED ITS OFFICE PREMISES AND THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WAS RE TURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH ENDORSEMENT LEFT WITHOUT INSTRUCT IONS. ON FURTHER EXAMINATION BY THE BENCH, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INTIMATED THE REGISTRY AS WELL AS THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES ABOUT THE CHANGE OF ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEES PREMISES. THIS FACT COULD ALSO NOT BE DISPUTED BY THE LD.AR. THUS THERE IS GROSS LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE MP NO.15/CHNY/2018 (IN ITA NO.2779/CHNY/2016) :- 3 -: ASSESSEE AND NEITHER THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL N OR THE REVENUE CAN BE FOUND FAULT WITH. IT IS ALSO APPARENT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD UNDER THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD.AR. SINCE , THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE THE MP WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRI BED UNDER THE ACT DUE TO ITS OWN NEGLIGENCE; WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JUNE 29, 201 8, IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) , ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 1 /DATED: JUNE 29, 2018. TLN ( &+23 43$+ /COPY TO: 1. % /APPELLANT 4. 5+ /CIT 2. &'% /RESPONDENT 5. 3#67 &+ /DR 3. 5+ ( ) /CIT(A) 6. 7: ; /GF