Mepco Industries Limited, Madurai V. DCIT, Madurai

MA 157/CHNY/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4861 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH D : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] M.A.NO .157/MDS/2006 [ARISING OUT OF I .T.A NO.1399/MDS/04] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-1999 M/S MEPCO INDUSTRIES LTD 17-A VALLABHAI ROAD CHOKKIKULAM MADURAI 2 VS THE DY. CIT COMPANY CIRCLE MADURAI - 2 (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.3.2006 PASSED IN I.T.A.NO.1399/MDS/2004. TO BRING THIS PE TITION WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, IT HAS BEEN P LEADED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS PETITION IS WHETHER INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234C CAN BE LEVIED IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S 115JA OR NOT. AFTER M ENTIONING THAT THERE ARE CONFLICTING DECISIONS BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS ON THIS POINT, THE PETITIONER HAS SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT VIDE LETTER DATE D 13.9.2010. THIS BEING AN OLD PETITION AND MORE THAN 20 ADJOURNMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS PETITIO N IS FOUND TO BE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE M.A 157/06 :- 2 -: CASE OF CIT VS GEETHA RAMAKRISHNA MILLS P. LTD, 288 ITR 489, WHICH IS BINDING UPON THE TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID REASON FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THIS PETITION, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS HEREBY REJECTED. 2. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C CAN BE LEVIED EVEN IF THE ASSESSMENT OF A COM PANY WAS MADE U/S 115J OF THE ACT, WE DO NOT THINK THAT THERE IS ANY MERIT IN THIS PETITION. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM THE RECORD TO RECTIFY U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME STAND S DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.9.2 010. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17 TH SEPTEMBER,2010 RD COPY TO: APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR