Kumbazha Tourist Home (Dissolved), Pathanamthitta V. ITO, Thiruvalla

MA 18/COCH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8646 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADUMNA KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PREETHA S NAIR

Judgement Text

1 M.A 18/COCH/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKA RAN(AM) M.A. NO 18/COCH/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 286/COCH/2003) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95) KUMBAZHA TOURIST HOME (DISSOLVED) VS THE ITO, WD. 3 PATHANAMTHITA THIRUVALLA PAN : NOT AVAILABLE (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. PREETHA S NAIR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRADUMNA KUMAR SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 27-07-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-07-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION TO IMPLEAD THE OTHER PARTNERS ALSO AS PARTIES IN THE APPEAL. 2. WE HEARD SMT. PREETHA S NAIR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD.DR, SHRI PRADUMNA KUMAR SINGH. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPEAL WAS D ISPOSED OF FINALLY BY AN ORDER DATED 20-01-2012. THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS DISSOLVED AND DISCONTINUED ITS BUSINESS. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW EVEN THOUGH THE FIRM WAS DISSOLVED AND DISCONTINUED THE BUSINESS, IT HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS SUCH AS FAR AS T HE INCOME-TAX ACT IS CONCERNED. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY FILED AN APPLICATION TO IMPLEAD THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF ONE OF THE DECEASED PARTNER ALSO TO REPRESENT THE FIRM. T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED REVISED FORM 36 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. ON THE BASIS OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE 2 M.A 18/COCH/2012 LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED PARTNER WAS BR OUGHT ON RECORD TO REPRESENT THE FIRM. NOW THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE OTHER PAR TNERS SHOULD ALSO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD IN ORDER TO FIX THE TAX LIABILITY ON THEM AL SO. ADMITTEDLY, THE OTHER PARTNERS WERE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE AP PEAL. IF THE OTHER PARTNERS ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD NOW, THEY MAY NOT HAVE AN OPPORTU NITY TO REPRESENT THE MATTER BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL WAS ALREADY DISPO SED OF AND THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF IMPLEADING ANYBODY AS A PARTY IN THE APPEAL DOES NO T ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION AT THIS STAGE. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO BRI NG ON RECORD THE OTHER PARTNERS OF THE FIRM AS PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT I N THE APPLICATION. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF JULY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 27 TH JULY, 2012 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH