M/s. SPIC Limited, Tuticorin V. ITO, Tuticorin

MA 184/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5209 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI B BENCH, CHENNAI. (BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GE ORGE, A.M.) M.A. NOS. 184 AND 223/MDS/2009 [IN I.T.A. NOS.740 AND 741/MDS/2005] ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1997-98 AND 1999-2000 SPIC LIMITED, SPIC NAGAR, TUTICORIN 628 005. [PAN: AAACS4668K] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), TUTICORIN. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN REVENUE BY : SHRI B. SRINIVAS ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. BY MEANS OF THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO GET RECALLED THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DAT ED 30.01.2009 IN I.T.A. NOS. 740 AND 741/MDS/2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 AND 1 999-2000. 2. FACTS INDICATE THAT, ORIGINALLY, THE APPEALS WE RE POSTED FOR HEARING ON 15.03.2006 AND SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WERE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION/NON- APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FOR RECA LLING THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE BENCH HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON- APPEARANCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS, T HE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECALLED AND POSTED FOR HEARING ON 16.10.2008. AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 11.12.2008, WHICH WAS DULY NOTED BY THE LD. AR BY PUTTING HIS SIGNATURE IN THE ORDER SHEET AND THE BENCH HAS DIRECTED THE LD. AR TO M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 2 REMOVE THE DEFECTS, ETC. IN THE APPEAL. ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 11.12.2008, AGAIN THE LD. AR HAS REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT FURNIS HING ANY RECTIFIED APPEAL PAPERS ETC. AND AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. AR THE CASE WAS FURTH ER ADJOURNED TO 22.01.2009, WHICH WAS DULY NOTED BY LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BY SIGNI NG IN THE ORDER SHEET. ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ON 22.01.2009 ALSO, THE LD. A R OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY RECTIFIED APPEAL PAPERS OR ANY CONDONATION PETITION FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL LATE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE BENCH AND ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.01.2009 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E. 3. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS PRAYING THEREIN FOR RECALLING THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED ON 30.01.2009. THE MAS WERE POSTED FOR HEARING ON 11.0 9.2009, WHICH WERE ADJOURNED TO 20.11.2009. DESPITE NOTING THE DATE OF NEXT HEARIN G OF THE RESTORED/RECALLED APPEALS, THE LD. AR HAS CONTINUOUSLY SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS WHE NEVER THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING VIZ. (20.11.2009, 05.03.2010, (GOT ADJOURNM ENT BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. V.P. ON 12.03.2010 AND 25.06.2010), 16.07.2010, 23.07.2010, 30.07.2010, 06.08.2010 AND 27.08.2010). FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPLICATI ON HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO HEARING NOTICE WAS RECEIVED EXCEPT FOR THE DATE OF HEARING ON 16.10.2008 AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 18. 04.2005, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECTIFIED ALL THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT IN THE MEMO A ND AFTER RECTIFICATION, ALL THE PAPERS WITH COVERING LETTER AND CONDONATION REQUEST LETTER BOTH DATED 27.07.2005 WERE MAILED AND THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT HAS RECEIVED THE LETTER AND APPEAL M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 3 DOCUMENTS ON 12.08.2005 BUT DESPITE THAT APPEALS HA VE BEEN DISMISSED WHICH MAY BE RECALLED. 3.1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERAT ING THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE APPLICATIONS HAS PRAYED FOR GIVING DIRECTION TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRARS OFFICE TO TRACE THE DOCUMENTS BY VIRTUE OF WHICH IT HAS RECTI FIED APPEAL PAPERS AND FURTHER SENT THE LETTER REQUESTING CONDONATION OF DELAY AND REQU ESTED TO BRING THEM ON TO THE FILES OF THE APPEAL AND TO RECALL THE ORDER/APPEALS AND HEAR THE CASES ON MERITS AND RENDER JUSTICE. 3.2 THE LD. DR, WHILE STRONGLY OBJECTING TO THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAS STATED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS REALL Y INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE ITS CASES, IT WOULD NOT HAVE DRAGGED THE CASE BY SEEKING A NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENTS RIGHT FROM THE DATE OF ITS INITIAL POSTING FOR HEARING OF THE MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AND WOULD HAVE FILED SO CALLED COPIES OF RECTIFIED APPEALS PAPER A ND CONDONATION PETITION WHEN BENCH HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS TO DO SO IF HE HAD AN Y EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE RESTORED/RECALLED APPEALS ON 16.10.2 008. MOREOVER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY WELL NOTED THE ADJOURNED DATE OF HEARING OF THE RESTORED/RECALLED APPEALS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION OF NO HEARING NOTICE WAS ISSUED SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. SIMPLY PLEADING IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSISTANT REGISTRARS OFFICE HAS RECEIVED THE RECTI FIED APPEAL PAPERS AND PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, ETC. ON 12.08.2005, WHICH WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN MAILED ON 27.07.2005 IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. IT IS VERY MUCH SU RPRISING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 4 GIVEN ANY REASON WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FOR N OT SENDING ANOTHER COPY OR EVEN SUBMITTING COPY OF THE SO CALLED PAPERS STATED TO H AVE SENT BY POST BEFORE THE BENCH FOR ITS CONSIDERATION RATHER THAN PLEADING FOR GIVING D IRECTIONS TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRARS OFFICE FOR TRACING OUT THE SO CALLED PAPERS INSTEAD OF FILING A PHOTOCOPY OF THE SO CALLED PAPERS BEFORE THE BENCH AND PLEAD FOR A FAVOURABLE CONSIDERATION OF THE BENCH. IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AT ALL INTERE STED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEALS WHICH HAVE APPROPRIATELY BEEN DISMISSED AND THE LD. DR PL EADED FOR DISMISSAL OF BOTH THE APPLICATIONS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN REASO NABLE CAUSE, IF ANY, IN BELATED FILING OF THE APPEAL BY MAKING SPECIFIC MENTION IN THE ORD ER SHEET DATED 16.10.2008 DIRECTING LD. A.R. TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT IN THE S AID APPEALS AND CASE ADJOURNED FOR 11.12.2008. CASE WAS FURTHER ADJOURNED FOR 22.1.20 09, WHICH ADJOURNMENT DATE TOO WAS NOTED BY ASSESSEES COUNSEL HIMSELF ON 11.12.20 08. ON 22.1.2009, AGAIN, WHEN ASSESSEES COUNSEL APPEARED, HE DID NOT FILE ANY CO NDONATION PETITION NOR DID HE REMOVE THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT TO HIM IN THESE APPE ALS AND THIS BENCH PROCEEDED TO DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE POINT OF LIMITATION AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FILED M.P. AND IT HAS BEEN MAINLY CONTENDED THE REIN THAT FIRSTLY ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 22.1.2009 AND MO REOVER, ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISPATCHED CONDONATION PETITION AS WELL AS RECTIFIE D APPEAL PAPERS BY POST AND THESE PAPERS SHOULD BE TRACED FROM THE OFFICE, HE HAS PLE ADED FOR RECALLING ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDING THE APPEALS ON MERITS BY REND ERING JUSTICE, WHEREAS THE LD. D.R. M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 5 HAS OPPOSED THE MOVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND PLEADED TH AT ON THE DATES FIXED, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS APPEARED AND NOTED THE DATES OF NEXT HEARING BUT IN NONE OF THESE DATES HE HAS TAKEN ANY PLEA OF HAVING SENT SO ME PAPERS NOR HE FURNISHED ANY PROOF THEREOF AND SINCE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECTIFIED DEFECTS NOR DID IT FILE CONDONATION PETITION GIVING VALID REASONS FOR NOT FILING APPEAL WITHIN STIPULATED TIME, THE BENCH HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND S INCE THERE IS NO MISTAKE HAVING BEEN POINTED OUT, SO APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE N EEDS DISMISSAL. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT ON 16.10.2008, BENCH HAS RECORDED THE PRESENCE OF SHRI N. DEVANATHAN FOR ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED HIM TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS OF THE APPEAL AN D ADJOURNED THE HEARING FOR 11.12.2008 WHICH DATE HAS DULY BEEN NOTED BY THE SA ID COUNSEL AND ON 11.12.2008 AGAIN THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL APPEARED AND REQUESTED FOR FURTHER ADJOURNMENT WHICH HAS BEEN GRANTED FOR 22.1.2009 AND ON 22.1.2009, AS SESSEES COUNSEL APPEARED BUT DID NOT FILE ANY RECTIFIED PAPERS NOR EVEN PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AGAINST WHICH DEFECT MEMO STANDS ALREADY ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE A ND IT APPEARS THAT THE BENCH, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS, PROCEEDED TO DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ON LIMITATION POINT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONDONATION PETITION. SINCE NEITHER ANY MATERIAL HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS C LAIM OF HAVING FURNISHED ANY REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FILING APPEALS WITHIN STIPU LATED TIME AND IN THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PLEA THAT NO NOTICE HAS BEEN RECE IVED IS NOT TENABLE AS ASSESSEES COUNSEL HIMSELF HAS PUT IN HIS PRESENCE DURING BOTH THE DATES OF HEARING AND THAT APART NEITHER ON 11.12.2008 NOR ON 22.1.2009, THE ASSESSE E HAS TAKEN ANY PLEA OF EITHER M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 6 HAVING FILED/SENT RECTIFIED PAPERS OF APPEAL OR CON DONATION PETITIONS, THEREFORE, PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS ALREADY FURNISHED SUCH DOC UMENTS TOO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE. OT HERWISE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY VALID GROUND FOR RECTIFICATION OF T HE ORDER PASSED AND DISMISS THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING DEVOID OF MERITS . 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 04.11.2010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VM/- DATED :. 04.11.2010. COPY TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R. M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 7 TO PLEAD ITS CASE WITH SUPPORTING MATERIAL, WHICH W AS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, THE ASSESSEES ALLEGATION THAT THE RESTORED/RECALL ED APPEALS WERE POSTED FOR HEARING ON 16.10.2008 AND LATER, ON A DATE NOT KNOWN AS NO HEARING NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE RESTORED/RECALLED APPEALS ON 16.10.2008, WHEN THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, VERY MUCH PUT ON HIS PRESENCE IN THE BENCH WAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS IN THE APPEAL AND ALSO TO FILE AUTHORIZATION IN HIS FAVOUR AND THE CA SES WERE ADJOURNED TO 11.12.2008 AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND HE HIMSELF PUT HIS SIGNATURE IN THE ORDER SHEET FOR NOTING THE NEXT DATE. ON 11.12.2008 , WHEN CASES WERE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, AT THE REQUEST OF THE LD. AR, THE CASES WE RE FURTHER ADJOURNED TO 22.01.2009 AND THE LD. COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE HAS ALSO VERY WELL NOTED THE DATE BY PUTTING HIS SIGNATURE IN THE ORDER SHEET. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS EES CLAIM OF NO HEARING NOTICE WAS RECEIVED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. DURING THE HEARING OF RESTORED/RECALLED APPEALS ON 16.10.2008, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS DI RECTED TO REMOVE THE DEFECTS IN THE ORIGINAL APPEALS SINCE HE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO FURNISH THE SAME BEFORE THE BENCH TILL THE DATE OF HEARING ON 22.01.2009, THE TRIBUNA L HAD NO OTHER GO BUT TO PASS THE ORDER DISMISSING THE RESTORED/RECALLED APPEALS FOR NON RE MOVAL OF THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH. ON FILING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON AND RIGHT FROM THE DATE OF FIRST HEARING ON 11.09.2009 TO 17.09.2010, NO EFFORTS HAS BEEN MADE TO FILE THE RECTIFIED COPIES OF THE APPEAL PAPERS/CONDONATION APPLICATION ETC. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEALS WITH RELEVANT MATERIAL EITH ER BY PLACING ON RECORD AND FURNISHING BEFORE THE BENCH, AS SUCH WE DISMISS BOTH THE MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 8