Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1196 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
27-11-2013
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
13-11-2013
Assessment Year
1996-1997
Appeal Filed On
30-04-2008
Judgement Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.61 /LKW/20 08 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.709/LKW/2005) A.Y.: 1996 - 97 SRI DEEPAK KOTHARI, (HUF) KANPUR. PAN:AAAHD4488H VS. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, KANPUR. (A PPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI S. K. GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SMT. SAFALI SWROOP, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 18/11/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 7 /11/2013 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 8 TH MAY,2008 POINTING OUT CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 21/09/2007. THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS SIGNED BY SHRI S. K. GARG, ADVOCATE/COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE HEARING OF THIS MISC. APPLICATION WAS FIXED ON SO MANY OCCASIONS BUT T HE SAME WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON DATED 19/03/2010, IT IS NOTED IN THE ORDER SHEET THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING, SHRI S. K. GARG, ADVOCATE SUBMITTED THAT THE MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED WITH HIS SIGNATURE AND HE WANTS TO CHANGE THE MISC. APPLICATION. ON HIS REQUEST AND TO ENABLE HIM TO CHANGE THE MISC. APPLICATION , THE [ 2 ] HEARING WAS ADJOURNED. THEREAFTER, THE HEARING WAS FIXED ON SEVERAL DATES BUT THE SAME WERE ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF SHRI S. K. GARG, ADV OCATE WAS NOT CHANGED. 3. ON THIS DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 18/11/2013, THIS QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE BENCH AS TO HOW THIS MISC. APPLICATION, WHICH IS FILED UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF SHRI S. K. GARG, ADVOCATE AND NOT UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE IS MAINT AINABLE. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HA D NOTHING TO SAY. THIS WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH THAT AS PER THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE ORDER HAS TO BE PASSED WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL O RDER AND IN THE PRESENT CASE , THIS PERIOD HAS EXPIRED LONG BACK. THE BENCH ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF MISC. APPLICATION IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE THEN IT MAY BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ASKED TO SUFFER FOR A DEFAULT NOT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ORDER MAY BE PASSED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT EVEN AFTER SAID PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY BECAUS E THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IS TAKING ADJOURNMENT TIME AND AGAIN ON SOME PLEA OR OTHER. THEN HOW AN ORDER CAN BE PASSED U/S254(2) AFTER 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN REPLY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HA D NOTHING TO SAY ON THIS ASPECT ALSO. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS NOTED ABOVE AND WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR THIS SIMPLE REASON THAT THE MISC. APPLICATION IS NOT FILED UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WAS FILED UNDER THE SIGNATURE OF [ 3 ] SHRI S. K. GARG, ADVOCATE/COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 19/03/2010 , THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED UNDER HIS SIGNATURE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND HE WANTS TO CHANGE THE MISC. APPLICATION BUT HE HAS NOT DONE SO. MOREOVER, REGARDING THE TIME PERIOD PRESCRIBED U/S254(2) OF THE ACT FOR PASSING AN ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER THIS SUB SECTION, THIS VIEW HAS BEE N TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS THAT WHERE THE DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF MISC. APPLICATION IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, AN ORDER CAN BE PASSED U/S 254(2) EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDE R BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE , THE DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, FOR THIS REASON ALSO, THIS MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. HENCE, THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MIS C. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :./11/2013 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE O RDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A ) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR
