Vandana B.Dolia, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 12(5), CHENNAI

MA 223/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8162 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS S VIDYA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 223/CHNY/2018 [I.T.A. NO.2724/CHNY/2017] / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2014-15 SMT. VANDANA B. DOLIA, 38, ERRABALU CHETTY STREET, CHENNAI 600 001. [PAN: ACAPV 6546J] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 12(5), CHENNAI . ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MRS. S. VIDYA, C.A. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 28.12.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.12.2018 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 2724/CHNY/2017 DATED 29.08.2018. MRS. S. VIDYA, C.A. REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT REPRESENTED THE REVENUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED AND THE APPEAL BE DISPOSED OF. 2. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY NON-CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE M.P. NO.223/CHNY/18 2 RECALL OF THE ORDER WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY NOT CONDONING THE DELAY AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS UN-ADMITTED. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED BY CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN RESPECT OF THE DELAY. RECALLING THE ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECONSIDERING THE SAME FACTS WOULD AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THIS BEING SO, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE M.P. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH DECEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (GEORGE MATHAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 28.12.2018 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.