M/s Chaupal Plywood, Yamunanagar V. ITO, Chandigarh

MA 33/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5081 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.33/CHD/2010 IN ITA NO. 1022/CHD/2009 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) M/S CHAUPAL PLYWOOD, VS THE ITO, VILLAGE - NABH, WARD - 3, YAMUNA NAGAR. YAMUNA NAGAR. PAN : AAEEC0137C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.12.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT LD. CIT(APPE ALS) KARNAL PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 12.10.2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL 2005-06. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) NOTED THAT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS T IME BARRED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON MERIT DID NOT COND ONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. HE HAS, THEREFORE, REJECTED THE CONDONATION PETITION AND DI SMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING TIME BARRED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON MERIT ALSO, ADJUDICATED THE GROUNDS AND ULTIMATELY DISMISSED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. GROUND NO. 1 WAS 2 RAISED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEYOND THE PER IOD OF LIMITATION. GROUND NOS. 2 TO 7 WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST MERIT OF THE ADDITION. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDE R DATED 22.12.2009 DISMISSING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL HAS MADE SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO DELAY NOT CONDONED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE TRI BUNAL AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) REJECTING T HE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY MOVED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DISMISS ING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING TIME BARRED. THE TRIB UNAL, IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER DID NOT DECIDE OTHER GRO UNDS OF APPEAL ON MERIT. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLAN EOUS APPLICATION FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL DATED 22.12.2009. 4. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE THROU GH REGISTERED POST ON SEVERAL DATES OF HEARING. WE HAV E HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. 5. THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HA S SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THE REASONS FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE 3 ASSESSEE'S BONAFIDE BELIEF WAS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. NON CONSIDERATION OF THE JUDGEMENTS CONSTITUTE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOTHING TO GAIN BY DE LAYING FILING OF THE APPEAL. 6. WE FOUND FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO CONDONATION OF DELAY AND LD . CIT(APPEALS) ON MERIT, DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPE AL AND ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED B EING TIME BARRED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE RAISED SEVERAL CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APP EAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE TRIBUNAL HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD AND ON MERITS, U PHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE HIM. THE TRIBUNAL, T HEREFORE, PASSED THE ORDER ON MERIT CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIO NS OF THE PARTIES AS WELL AS ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD. T HEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH COULD BE RECTIFIED IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDERS PASSED ON MERITS. WE RELY UPON DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ERNEST EXPORTS LTD . 323 ITR 577, DECISION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF ANAMIKA BUILDERS 251 ITR 585, DECISION OF ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IDEAL ENGINEERS 2 51 ITR 4 743 AND DECISION OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF AGGARWAL WAREHOUSING 257 ITR 235. HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LIVER LTD. 284 ITR 42 HELD THAT, THE MISTAKE MUST BE SO OBVIOUS THAT IT CAN BE EASILY BE CORRECTED, TO WIT AND ARI THMETIC MISTAKE, WRONG QUOTATION OF SECTION ETC. AND NOT ON DEBATABLE ISSUE. 7. SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEE N DECIDED ON MERIT BY THE TRIBUNAL, CONFIRMING THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN NOT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL BEFORE HIM, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY THE SUBSEQUENT BENCH. NO MIS TAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. IN THIS V IEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELL ANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MISCELLANEO US APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH DECEMBER,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD