Savitri Fashion Crafrts (P) Ltd., V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 415/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5360 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BANITA DEVI NAOREM
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH B BENCH B BENCH B BENCH B : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M BEFORE SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .415/DEL/2010 & 416/DEL/2010 415/DEL/2010 & 416/DEL/2010 415/DEL/2010 & 416/DEL/2010 415/DEL/2010 & 416/DEL/2010 (IN ITA NOS.3500/DEL/2005 & 3501/DEL/2005) (IN ITA NOS.3500/DEL/2005 & 3501/DEL/2005) (IN ITA NOS.3500/DEL/2005 & 3501/DEL/2005) (IN ITA NOS.3500/DEL/2005 & 3501/DEL/2005) ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEARS SS S : : : : 1999 1999 1999 1999- -- -2000 & 199 2000 & 199 2000 & 199 2000 & 1997 77 7- -- -98 9898 98 M/S SAVITRI FASHION CRAFT M/S SAVITRI FASHION CRAFT M/S SAVITRI FASHION CRAFT M/S SAVITRI FASHION CRAFT (P) LTD., (P) LTD., (P) LTD., (P) LTD., 1/2320, RAM NAGAR, 1/2320, RAM NAGAR, 1/2320, RAM NAGAR, 1/2320, RAM NAGAR, SUBASH MARG, SUBASH MARG, SUBASH MARG, SUBASH MARG, SHANTI BUILDING, SHANTI BUILDING, SHANTI BUILDING, SHANTI BUILDING, SHAHDRA. SHAHDRA. SHAHDRA. SHAHDRA. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -7(4), 7(4), 7(4), 7(4), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.SAMPATH, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : MS.BANITA DEVI NAOREM, SR.DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA PER SHAMIM YAHYA PER SHAMIM YAHYA PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A , A, A , AM : M : M : M : BY WAY OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, ASSESSE E SEEKS RECALL OF ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.3500/DE L/2005 & 3501/DEL/2005 FOR THE AY 1999-2000 & 1997-98. THE ORDER IS DATED 21.11.2005. THE AFORESAID APPEALS WERE DISMISSED F OR LACK OF PROSECUTION BY THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE PLE ADED THAT THERE WAS JUST AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE NON-APPEARANC E ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO OBJECTING TO THE OBSERVATION IN THE SAID ORDER THAT NOTICES SENT BY REGISTERED POST HAVE RETURNED UNSERVED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSEE PLEADS THAT AFORESAID ORDER MAY KINDLY BE RECALLED TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE A N OPPORTUNITY FOR CANVASSING THE CASE. 2. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. WE FIND THAT SECTION 254(2) MANDATES THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER WITH A VIEW T O RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB- MA-415 & 416/D/2010 2 SECTION (1) AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MI STAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE AO. IN THE PR ESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER IS DATED 21.11.2005 AND THE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE FILED ON 28.7.2010. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT MO RE THAN FOUR YEARS HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE DATE OF ORDER. HENCE, THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE NOT TENABLE U/S 254(2) OF THE IT A CT. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE A PPLICATIONS MAY BE CONDONED. FOR THIS, ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE D ECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CONCORD OF INDIA INSURANC E CO.LTD. VS. SMT.NIRMALA DEVI & OTHERS 118 ITR 507. WE HAVE G ONE THROUGH THE AFORESAID HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION. WE DO NOT F IND THE SAME HELPING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ANY WAY. IN TH E SAID ORDER, IT WAS HELD THAT FOR EXERCISE OF POWER U/S 136, THERE MUST BE MANIFEST INJUSTICE OR GROSS MISAPPRECIATION OR PERVERSITY IN FACTUAL FINDINGS AND WHERE THE MERITS OF THE CASE DID NOT CALL FOR ANY I NTERVENTION AT ALL, THE PETITION IS TO BE DISMISSED. LEARNED DR, ON THE OT HER HAND, ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE IT ACT FOR THE AS SESSEE TO FILE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF ORDER AFTER FOUR YEARS FR OM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES NARRATED IN THIS CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE INASMUCH AS THEY WERE FILED MORE THAN FOUR YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF THE ORDER IN THE APPEALS. 3. IN THE RESULT, THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS STAND DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI (R.P.TOLANI) )) ) (SHAMIM YAHYA (SHAMIM YAHYA (SHAMIM YAHYA (SHAMIM YAHYA) )) ) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATED : 11.03.2011. VK. MA-415 & 416/D/2010 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR