RAVIKUMAR DHANDHANIA, SALEM V. ITO WARD 1 (4), SALEM

MA 55/CHNY/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3288 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ‘ए यायपीठ, चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी वी. द ु गा राव, या यक सद य एवं ी जी. मंज ु नाथ, लेखा सद य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M i s c. Ap p l i c ati on No. 5 5/ Ch n y/ 2 0 2 2 [ I n I T A N o . 1 7 9 3 / C h n y / 2 0 1 8 ] ( नधा रणवष / A ss e ss m en t Yea r : 2 00 7 - 08 ) Mr. Ravikumar Dhandhania, 17-F, Rajaji Road, Salem-636 007. V s The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Salem. P A N : A C GP D 9 3 7 4 E ( ाथ क /Petitioner) ( यथ /Respondent) ाथ क क ओरसे/ Petitioner by : Mr. M.Narayanan, Retd.Addl.CIT यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr. AR V Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT स ु नवाई क तार ख/D a t e o f h e a r i n g : 05.08.2022 घोषणा क तार ख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 05.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, AM: The present Miscellaneous Petition is filed against order of this Tribunal dated 31.03.2022 in ITA No.1793/Chny/2018 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. 2. We find that present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by one Mr.Narayanan, Retired Additional CIT, claiming to be petitioner in the case. We have heard both the parties and perused relevant contents of Miscellaneous Application filed. During the course of hearing, the Bench has apprised provisions of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and 2 M.A. No.55 /Chny/2022 informed the petitioner Mr. M.Narayanan that as per provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal may, at any time, within six months from the end of the month in which order was passed, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub- section (1), and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. Since, the petitioner is neither appellant / respondent in this case, the Bench has called upon the petitioner to explain his locus standi to file Miscellaneous Application against order of the Tribunal dated 31.03.2022. In response, the petitioner admits that he is neither the assessee nor respondent in this case, however, contended that he is a citizen of India and having every right to file Misc.Application and requests the Tribunal to recall the order for reasons stated in his Misc.Application. 3. Per contra, the learned DR opposing application filed by the petitioner u/s.254(2) of the Act, submitted that the 3 M.A. No.55 /Chny/2022 petitioner does not have locus standi to file any Miscellaneous Application and thus, same may be dismissed as infructuous. 4. Having heard both the sides and considered relevant provisions of the section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we are of the considered view that income-tax dispute is between individual and the State and thus, no third party can intervene in any proceedings before the authorities, including the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, any application filed by third party, other than appellant / respondent is not admissible at all, because, third person does not have any locus standi to intervene in the dispute between the individual and the State, which is very clear from the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, where it has been clearly explained that the Appellate Tribunal may, at any time, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. In this case, the petitioner is neither appellant nor respondent. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner 4 M.A. No.55 /Chny/2022 u/s.254(2) of the Act is not admissible and thus, same is rejected. 5. In the result, Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5 th August, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- ( वी. द ु गा राव) (जी. मंज ु नाथ) (V.Durga Rao) (G.Manjunatha) या यक सद य /Judicial Member लेखा सद य / Accountant Member चे नई/Chennai, #दनांक/Dated 5 th August, 2022 DS आदेश क त'ल(प अ+े(षत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु ,त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आय ु ,त/CIT 5. (वभागीय त न2ध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF.