GIRISH G DUBE, V. ITO WD 25(2)(4),

MA 661/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6430 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH JOOTHAWAT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM M.A.NO.661/MUM/2010 (ARISING OUT OF CO NO.253/MUM/2007 : ASST.YEAR 2003 -2004) SHRI GIRISH G.DUBE B-1 KAVITA APARTMENTS, CAR ROAD NO.9 BORIVLI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 066. PAN : AABPD5263D. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 25(2)(4) MUMBAI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI DINESH JOOTHAWAT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.SINGH O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S.254(2) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE PRAYING FOR THE RECTIFIC ATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.04.2010 IN CO NO.1405/MUM/2007 (I TA NO.1157/M/2007). 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIO N BY NOT CONDONING DELAY BE RECALLED AND OPPORTUNITY BE GIVEN FOR HEARING. IN T HE OPPOSITION THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WA S NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER REQUIRING ANY RECTIFICATION. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION WAS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE BELATEDLY 191 DAYS. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT T HE REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE THE CROSS OBJECTION SO FILED WAS DISMISSED BY CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL POSITION PREVAILING IN THE CASE AS WELL AS CERTAIN JUDGEMENTS / ORDERS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION INASMUCH AS THERE IS NO MISTAKE MUCH LESS THE MISTA KE APPARENT FROM RECORD MA NO.661/MUM/2010 SHRI GIRISH G.DUBE. 2 REQUIRING ANY RECTIFICATION. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PAS SING THE ORIGINAL ORDER CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE FACTUAL POSITION AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE REASONS FOR DELAY WERE NOT BONA FIDE . HERE IT IS IMPORTANT TO MENTION THAT THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 254(2) DO NOT EMPOWER THE PARTIES TO REARGU E THE MATTER AND IMPRESS UPON THE BENCH TO TAKE A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION FROM THE O NE ALREADY TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH WERE EARLI ER CONSIDERED WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL U/S.254(1). UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ENTERTAIN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI : 29 TH APRIL, 2011. DEVDAS* COPY TO : 1. THE APPLICANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) XXV, MUMBAI. 5. THE DR/ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.