Sri K.P.Beeran, Calicut V. DCIT, Calicut

MA 158/COCH/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3521 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2009
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR BABU JOSEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: A V MURALEEDHARAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA M.P.NO.158/COCH/200 9 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.(S&S)A.NO.131/ COCH/2004, 01/COCH/2005 & CO NO.46/COCH/2005 BLOCK PERIOD:1991 - 92 TO 2001 - 02 K.P. B EERAN, CALICUT. PA NO.AEGPB 6731 B VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CALICUT. (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI A.V. MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENT BY DR. BABU JOSEPH, SR.DR O R D E R PER N.VIJAYAKUMARAN,J.M: THE ABOVE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION WERE DISPOSE D OFF BY THE TRIBUNAL THROUGH ITS ORDER DATED 18 TH SEPOTEMBER,2009, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. 2. IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE PETIT IONER SUBMITS THAT WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS, THE TR IBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED VARIOUS ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER, DECISIONS RELIED UPON AND PAPER BOOK SU BMITTED, ETC. FURTHER, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIO NER THAT TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS RAISED B Y THE MP NO. 158/COCH/2009 2 PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF ADMISSION OF APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS IT WAS TIME BARRED AND NO CONDONATION PETITION WAS ACCOMPANIED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES TO THE DISPUTE. WE H AVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETI TION AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18-09-2009. WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON, MATERIAL S AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ONLY THEREAFTER GIVEN ITS FINDINGS. IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER PUT FORTH A T THIS STAGE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT WIL L AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF ITS ORDER, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN VI EW OF THE RECENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AN D THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. 305 ITR 227 AND THAT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX REPORTED IN 320 ITR 12. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EARNEST EXPORTS, DATED MARCH 6, 2010 (SHOWN WWW.ITATONLINE.ORG ), THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER MP NO. 158/COCH/2009 3 U/S.254(2) TO RE-EVALUATE THE CORRECTNESS ON MERITS OF EARLIER DECISION. ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.VIJAYKUMARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER ERNAKULAM, DATED THE 17 TH MAY,2010. PM. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. K.P. BEERAN, RIVAS JEWELLERY, KAMATHI LANE, CALIC UT. 2. THE DY. CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE, CALICUT. 3. CIT(A)-I, KOCHI. 4. CIT, CENTRAL, KOCHI. 5. D.R. BY ORDER SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR