Smt. P. Sampath Rao, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

MA 49/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1640 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency
• Section: 12

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISC. APPLN. NO.49/HYD/2014 (IN ITA NO.1300/HYD/11) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 SHRI P.SAMPTATH RAO, HYDERABAD ( PAN - AHGPP 9347 Q ) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9(1), HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SOLGY JOSE T.KOTTARAM DR DATE OF HEARING 21.3.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.3.2014 O R D E R PER SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY THIS APPLICATION UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT, APPLICANT - ASSESSEE SEEKS RECTIFICATION/RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 17TH DECEMBER , 2012 IN REVENUE S APPEAL, ITA NO. 1300 /HYD/201 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 1 0, ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD HAVE CREPT INTO THE SAME. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT - ASSESSEE DES PITE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. NOT EVEN AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION HAS BEEN RECEIVED. EVEN AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING ON THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON 17.12.2012, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE PRESENT APPLI CATION QUA THE ASSESSEE - ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE IT, VIDE ORDER DATED 17.12.2012, VIZ. ESTIMATION OF INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE FROM WINE BUSINESS, FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY IT IN SIMILAR CASES. THAT BEING SO, THERE MA NO.4 9 /HYD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 130 0/ HYD/20 1 2 ) SH RI P.SAMPATH RAO , HYDERABAD 2 IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 17.12.2012. IN ANY EVENT, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY RE CALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 17.12.2012, AND POSTING THE APPEAL FOR FRESH HEARING AND DISPOSAL, SINCE FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPLE OF CONSISTENCY, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN SIMILAR CASES HAS TO BE FOLLOWED, AND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN ITS EARLIER DECISION IN ITS ORDER DATED 17.12.2012. WE ACCORDINGLY FIND THAT THE PRESENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DEVOID OF MERIT, AND THE SAME AS SUCH IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. WE DO SO ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEO US APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21.3.2014 SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 21 ST MARCH, 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI P.SAMPATH RAO 16 - 02 - 2950/2, MALAKPET, HYDERABAD 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9 ( 1 ), HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) VI HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX V, HYDERABAD 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S