M/s. Royal Stitches Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 225/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7486 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NOS. 225 & 226/MDS/2011 (IN I.T.A.NOS. 774 & 775/MDS/2002) (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1994-95 & 1995-96) M/S. ROYAL STITCHES P. LTD., SAI BUSINESS POINT, II FLOOR, 17, MOUNT ROAD, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI 600 015. PAN AAACR 1709 A VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-IV(5), CHENNAI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, JU NIOR STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 6 TH JANUARY, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6 TH JANUARY, 2012 O R D E R PER DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THESE TWO PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SEEKI NG RECTIFICATION OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE TRI BUNAL ON 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2010 IN ITA NOS.774 & 775/MDS/2002. THE MISTAKE MA 225 & 226/11 :- 2 -: POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE PETITIONER IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SEC.234B. 2. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 77 4 & 775/MDS/2002 WERE DISMISSED IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION BY THE TRIBUNAL THROUGH ITS ORDER DATED 3 RD NOVEMBER, 2006. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED RESTORATION PETITIONS AND EARLIER ORDER WAS RECALLED AND THE MATTERS WERE AGAIN POSTE D. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY DISPOSED OF. THEREAFTER REVENUE FILED RECTIFICATION PETITIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WERE ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS RECALLED FOR DECIDING WHETHER THE INTEREST BY THE A SSESSEE WAS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OR INCOME F ROM BUSINESS AND IF IT IS UNDER THE LATTER HEAD WHETHER 90% THER EOF TO BE EXCLUDED UNDER EXPLANATION (BAA) TO SEC.80HHC OF IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961. THUS, DE FACTO THE MATTER WAS PLACED BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE THIRD TIME. 3. BUT IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT TO PROSECUTE THE APPEALS AND THEREFORE THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, CONSIDERATION OF THE MA 225 & 226/11 :- 3 -: GROUND RELATING TO SEC.234B DOES NOT ARISE. IT FOL LOWS THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIB UNAL. 6. THESE PETITIONS ARE ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING, ON FRIDAY, THE 6 TH OF JANUARY, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 6 TH JANUARY, 2012 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR