Smt. E.Rukmani, Avanashi V. ACIT, Coimbatore

MA 352/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5888 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 26-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: A- BENCH:CHENN AI (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA NOS. 350 TO 352/MDS/09 IN ITA NOS.2203 TO 2205 MDS/96 ASST. YEARS 1991-92 TO 1993-94 SMT.E.RUKMANI, 95B SRINIVASAPURAM MAIN RD., AVINASHI 641654 VS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIR.II, COIMBATORE (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: RESPONDENT BY: NONE SRI SHAJI P. JACOB ORDER PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THESE MISC. PETITIONS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD SUSTAINED THE REWORKING OF THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME AND SUSTAINED THE ASSESSMENT OF CASH CREDIT AND THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE TRIBUNAL WAS EXPARTE 2. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SUCH EXPARTE ORDER WA S APPEALED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT AND SUCH APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT FOR A RE ASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD MP NOS.350-2/MDS/09 2 NOT APPROACHED THE TRIBUNAL UNDER RULE 24/25 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. THEREFORE, THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE EXPARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE RECALLED. 3. WHEN THE PETITIONS WERE CALLED UPON FOR HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THERE IS A PETITI ON FOR ADJOURNMENT FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT A LAR GE NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED ON REQUEST O F THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. NO GOOD REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR S EEKING THE ADJOURNMENT. WE FIND NO REASON TO KEEP THESE MISC. PETITIONS FILED AS EARLY AS ON THE 26 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 PENDING. THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION IS REJECTED. 4. LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THE PETITIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HAD TO BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE READ THE MISC. PETITIONS CAREFULLY AND H EARD THE LD. DR. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS BEEN ASSAILED I N THE MISC. PETITIONS IS DATED 21-10-2003 AND THE MISC. PETITIONS FILED ON 2 6-10-2009 ARE WELL BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SEC.(2 ) OF SEC. 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT). AS PER ASSESSEE, THE PETITIONS MP NOS.350-2/MDS/09 3 FILED BY HER ARE ON THE BASIS OF RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AND NOT RECTIFICATION APPLICATIONS UNDER SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE DEFINED IN SECTIONS 252 TO 255 OF THE ACT AND THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER PASSING AN ORDER, HAS BEEN VEST ED ONLY A POWER FOR RECTIFICATION OF A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD VID E SUB-SEC.(2) OF SEC. 254 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PETITIONS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERE D AS FILED FOR RECTIFICATION OF A MISTAKE. WE FIND FROM THE RECORD S THAT THESE PETITIONS ARE ALL FILED WELL BEYOND THE FOUR YEARS LIMIT. HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THI S TRIBUNAL HELD AT PARA-3 AS UNDER: 3. IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, IF WE WERE TO ENTERT AIN THIS APPEAL, IT WILL BE LIKE PAYING A PREMIUM FOR THE UTTER INDIFFE RENCE DISPLAYED BY THE APPELLANT IN NOT PROSECURING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. MORE SO, WHEN THE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXHAUST THE R EMEDY AVAILABL;E TO HER AS PROVIDED UNDER THE RELEVANT RULES, VIZ. R ULE 25 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1983, IF THESE APPEALS AR E ENTERTAINED AT THIS DISTANT POINT OF TIME, IT WILL UNSETTLE SETTLE D THINGS, WHICH, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ALLOW. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FI ND ANY SCOPE TO ENTERTAIN THESE APPEALS. THE APPEALS FAIL AND THE S AME ARE DISMISSED. CONSEQUENTLY, M.P NO.1 OF 20099 IN TC (A) NOS.291 A ND 291 OF 20 ARE CLOSED. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT HELD THAT ENTERTAINING APPEALS AT SUCH DISTANT POINT OF TIME WOULD UNSETTLE SETTLED MP NOS.350-2/MDS/09 4 THINGS. WE THUS FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISC. PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED . ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 -12-2010. SD/- SD/- ( HARI OM MARATHA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI: 10TH DEC., 2010 NBR CC: ASSESSEE/ ASSESSING OFFICER/ CIT(A)/ CIT/ D .R/ GUARD FILE.