Rajalakshmi Vettrivel, New Delhi V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 418/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8761 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT M EMBER ] M.P.NOS.418, 419, 420, 421, 422 & 423/CHNY/2017 ./I.T.A. NOS. 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1110 & 1111/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 20 05-06, 2006-07, 2007-08. SMT. RAJALAKSHMI VETRIVEL, B-7, ASWATHI APARTMENTS, NO.16, IIND CRESCENT PARK ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 020. [PAN ACGPV 1471Q] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III(4) CHENNAI. ( '# / APPELLANT) ( $%'# /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R.CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 14-12-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-12-2018 & / O R D E R ASSESSEE THROUGH THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS STA TE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEALS WITHOUT CONDONIN G DELAY, IN A VACUUM AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CASE LAWS AND AR GUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL AT THE TIME OF T HE HEARING. FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION AS SUCH IS REPRODUCED HEREUN DER:- MP. NO.418 TO 423 /2017 :- 2 -: THE APPLICANT MOST RESPECTFULLY STATES AS FOLLOWS: THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT PRAYED FOR ADJOURNMEN T ON THE GROUND THAT EVIDENCE OF DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS PAPERS TO BE FILED AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THE APPLICANT'S HUSBAND IS RESIDING AT NEW DELHI AND ON ACCOUNT HIS ILL HEALTH HE WAS NOT IN POSITION TO AT TEND THE HEARING AND THE APPLICANT WAS OF THE OPINION TH AT NORMALLY THE FIRST HEARING THE ITAT USED TO GIVE . BUT SOME CASES OF OTHERS WERE GIVEN ADJOURNMENT WHICH EXHIBITED THE TILT OF JUDICIAL BALANCE AND JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. THE BLOOD CURDLY APPROACH WAS MADE BY THE ITAT WITHOUT PASSING THE SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ADJOURNMENT WHICH RESULTED VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION WHICH RESULTED NULLITY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ITAT GAVE ALLEGED FINDING ON VACUUM THAT THE DELAY IS NOTHING BUT NEGLIGENCE IS BASED ON PURE SUSPICION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND NON APPLICATION OF MIND IN REGARD TO REPRESENTATION MAD E FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT FOR THE REASON AND THE SOLE GROUND FOR FILING DIVORCE DOCUMENTS AND HENCE THE MANIFEST ERROR WAS COMMITTED BY THE ITAT BY PROCEEDING WITH THE CASE RESULTING LACK OF MATERIAL S FOR GIVING ANY FINDING. THUS THE PRINCIPLES OF EX D EBITO JUSTIAIAH GIVES BIRTH FOR RECTIFICATION BY WAY OF RECALLING OF THE ORDER. THE ITAT HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE APPLICANT DUE TO THE CASE WAS DECIDED AFTER MORE THAN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF HEARING COUPLED WITH NOT NOTING THE ARGUMENTS RESULTED THE HIMALAYAN INJUSTICE WHICH RANKLED THE HUMAN HEART AND AGONY AND THE INSTITUTION OF ITAT I S NOTHING BUT 'PUBLIC CONFIDENCE' WHICH' WAS SHATTER ED IN THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE APPLICANT SATISFIES THE CONDO NATION OF DELAY A ND THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE RESULTED IN NOT GRANTING TIME FOR PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AND THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT ANY MATERIALS TO COME TO THE WRONG CONCLUSIONS ON THE BASIS OF CLAIRVOYANCE OF REASONING. IT IS THEREFORE HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ITAT BE PLEASED TO RECALL THE ORDER MP. NO.418 TO 423 /2017 :- 3 -: AND THUS RENDER JUSTICE SINCE THE LAW BENDS BEFORE JUSTICE (SEE LILLY THOMOS SC). FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE GRATEFUL. 2. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT INJUSTICE WAS ME LTED UPON IT, ON ACCOUNT OF NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE LAWS AND A RGUMENTS PREFERRED BY ITS REPRESENTATIVE. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFF ICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO FILE EVIDENCE OF THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WAS THE REASON FOR THE DELAY OF 744 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. WHAT I FI ND FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS THAT CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HAVING NOT FILED EVID ENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WAS CITED AS THE REA SON FOR DELAY, ASSESSEE IN MY OPINION CANNOT SAY IT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DOING SO. THIS TRIBUNAL IN PARA 3 OF THE ORDER HAS REPRODUCED THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER REJE CTED DELAY CONDONATION APPLICATION ON MERITS. THAT APART, EV EN IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS PROCEEDINGS NOR IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASSESSEE CARE D TO APPEAR DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO IT. IN THE G UISE OF A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, ASSESSEE IS NOW SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. WHAT CAN BE RECTIFIED IS ONLY AN APPARENT AND GLARING MP. NO.418 TO 423 /2017 :- 4 -: MISTAKE IN AN ORDER AND NOT A WELL REASONED ORDER G IVEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL. I THUS DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE MI SCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 20 TH OF DECEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:20TH DECEMBER, 2018. KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF