M/s. Valarmathi Silks, Kancheepuram V. ACIT, Vellore

MA 235/CHNY/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5898 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2003
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. NOS. 235 & 236/MDS/2003 (IN I.T.A. NOS. 2542 & 2541/MDS/92) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1988-89 & 1989-90 M/S VALARMATHI SILKS, 12, METTU STREET, KANCHIPURAM 631 501. (APPLICANT) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(2), KANCHIPURAM 631 501. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, GRIE VANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIS MISSED ITS EARLIER PETITION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N I.T.A. NO. 2542 & 2541/MDS/92 DATED 18.8.93. AGAINST THE VERY SAME A PPEALS, ASSESSEE EARLIER FILED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS NUMB ERED AS 72/MDS/2002, 166 & 167/MDS/97. SUCH PETITIONS WERE DISMISSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THEY WERE TIME BARRED. M.A. NO. 235 & 236/MDS/03 2 2. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NUMBERED AS 234/MDS/03 WHICH ALSO SOUGHT RECALL OF THE ORDER DA TED 13.3.2003 OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M.P. NO. 72/MDS/2002, 166 & 167/MD S/97. IT WAS HELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL THAT VIDE THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR.S. PANNEERSELVAM V. AC IT REPORTED IN 319 ITR 135, ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN MISCELLANEO US PETITION NUMBERED AS 72/MDS/2002, 166 & 167/MDS/97, WHICH WE RE DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON 13.3.2003 AND THE ORIGINAL O RDER IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 2541 AND 2542/MDS/92 HAD MERGED AND THEREFORE, FURTHER MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS UNDER SE CTION 254(2) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED. 3. WHEN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WERE CALLED UP FOR HEARING, NOBODY ENTERED APPEARAN CE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS FILED ADJOURNMENT PETITION. EXCEPT CITING PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE, NO REASON WHATSOEVER IS GIVEN IN THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION. WE ALSO FIND THAT THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED AS EARLY AS 20.10.2003 AND WHEN IT WAS EARLIER POSTED FOR HEARING ON 8.10. 2010, NOBODY ENTERED APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE A RE, THEREFORE, NOT INCLINED TO GRANT THE ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT FOR WH ICH IS REJECTED. M.A. NO. 235 & 236/MDS/03 3 LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY OPPOSED THE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATIONS. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN AND AGAIN TRY ING TO WAKE UP THE SAME ISSUE WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS AND IT IS SEEKING A REVIEW OF NOT ONLY THE ORIGINAL ORDER BUT ALSO THE ORDERS IN THE EARLI ER MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS. THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT VESTED WITH ANY SU CH POWER OF REVIEW. THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE DEVOI D OF ANY MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (AB RAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER CHENNAI. DATED THE 3 RD DECEMBER, 2010. KRI. COPY TO: APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE