M/s. Gems Eyedrons Ltd.(In Liqn.), Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Ahmedabad

MA 180/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6999 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT JAIN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

- , - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO.177 AND 178/AHD/2016 IN ./ ITA NO.2356 AND 2357/AHD/2014 [ / ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-2007 AND 2008-2009] M/S.GUJARAT HI-TECH INDUSTRIES LTD. (IN LIQN.) C/O. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR JIVABHAI CHAMBERS ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380 009. VS. ITO, WARD-4(1) AHMEDABAD. MISC. APPLICATION NO.179/AHD/2016 IN ./ ITA NO.1494/AHD/2015 [ / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009] M/S.BENZO PETROCHEMICALS LTD. LTD. (IN LIQN.) C/O. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR JIVABHAI CHAMBERS ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD 380 009. VS. ITO, WARD-4(1) AHMEDABAD. MISC. APPLICATION NO.180/AHD/2016 IN ./ ITA NO.1495/AHD/2015 [ / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009] M/S.GEM EYEDRONS LTD. LTD. (IN LIQN.) C/O. OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR JIVABHAI CHAMBERS ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD 380 009. VS. ITO, WARD-4(1) AHMEDABAD. REVENUE BY : SHRI LALIT JAIN, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE MA NO.177/AHD/2016 (4 MAS.) 2 / DATE OF HEARING : 03/08/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 /08/2018 !' / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ABOVE FOUR MISC. APPLICATION ARE FILED AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE LD.OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE ES POINTING OUT APPARENT ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 4.12.2015 PASSED ON THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. 2. IN THE CASE OF BENZO PETROCHEMICALS LTD. AN ADJO URNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED UNDER THE SIGNATURE O F SHRI KIRAN SHAH STATING THEREIN THAT SHRI MUKUND BAKSHI, CA ATT ENDING THE MATTER IS SCHEDULED TO GO OUT OF STATION FOR A DAY, AND THEREFORE, SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND FOUND THAT NEITHER ANY POWER OF ATTORNEY IS AVAILABLE IN THE N AME OF SHRI KIRAN SHAH OR SHRI MUKUND BAKSHI. EVEN IN THE ORIGI NAL APPEAL RECORDS ALSO THERE WAS NO POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THE NAMES OF THESE TWO PERSONS. HENCE, SHRI KIRAN SHAH IS NOT AN AUTH ORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE CANNOT RECOGNIZE SUCH ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. HENC E, IT IS REJECTED. 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR, WE HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE M ISTAKE, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED, IS AN OBVIOUS PATENT MISTAK E, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE, WHICH IS REQUIRE D TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS, ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. WE HAVE PER USED MAS. IN THESE CASES. AS IT EMERGES OUT, OL HAS PLEADED THAT AP PEALS OF THE MA NO.177/AHD/2016 (4 MAS.) 3 ASSESSEES WERE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION WH ICH IS AN INCORRECT FACT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS GONE THROUGH THE APPLICATIO N FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY SUBMITTED BY THE OL IN THESE CASES AND WAS NO T SATISFIED WITH THE REASONS GIVEN IN THOSE APPLICATIONS. THEREFORE, TH E TRIBUNAL REFUSED TO CONDONE DELAY OF 484 DAYS IN THE CASE OF BENZO PETR OCHEMICALS LTD., 461 DAYS IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT HITEH INDUSTRIES LT D., AND 484 DAYS IN THE CASE OF GEMS EYEDRONS LTD. THUS, ADJUDICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL IS ON MERIT. A PERUSAL OF THE APPLICATIONS MOVED UNDE R SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH PAST HISTORY OF THE LIGATIONS IN THESE CASES WOULD INDICATE THAT THESE ARE BEING HANDLED IN MOST IRRES PONSIBLE WAY, RATHER WE WOULD SAY APPEALS AS WELL AS THESE APPLICATIONS WERE FILED FOR THE SAKE OF FILING. WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT ERROR I N THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THESE CASES, ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE MAS. ARE REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, MAS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 7 TH AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- (PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER