DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Southern Industrial Corporation Ltd., CHENNAI

MA 79/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5214 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI P JACOB
• Assessee Lawyers: S SATHIYANAR AYANAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH B : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] M.P.NO. 79/MDS/2010 [ARISING OUT OF W .T.A NOS.30 TO 32/MDS/01] ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1993-94 TO 1995-96 M.P.NO.108/MDS/2010 [IN M.P.NOS.112,113 & 76/MDS/09] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1995-96 THE DY. CIT COMPANY CIRCLE V(1) CHENNAI VS M/S SOUTHERN INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION 73, ARMENIAN STREET CHENNAI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI SHRI P. JACOB RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.SATHIYANARAYANAN O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JM: THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE IN RELATION TO THE TRIBUNAL ORDER PASSED IN M.P NOS.1 12, 113 & 76/MDS/09 PERTAINING TO WEALTH TAX APPEAL NOS.30, 3 1 & 32/MDS/01 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96, COMMON ORD ER DATED 22.9.2009. 2. THE COMMON FACTS LEADING TO THESE MISCELLANE OUS PETITIONS BY THE REVENUE ARE THAT THE WEALTH TAX APPEAL NOS.30, 31 & 32 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 TO 1995-96 WERE FIXED FOR HEARING AND DESPITE SERVICE, NOBODY CAME TO REPRESENT THE APPEA LS ON BEHALF OF THE M.P 79&108/2010 :- 2 -: ASSESSEE, HENCE, THE SAME WERE DISMISSED IN LIMINE VIDE ORDER D 20.4.2005. AGAINST THIS ORDER, MISCELLANEOUS PETI TIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PLEADING THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANC E ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E 20.4.2005. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REA SONABILITY OF THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEALS IN W.T.A NOS. 30 TO 32/MDS/2001 WERE RESTORED TO THE ORIGINAL NUMBER W HEN THE TRIBUNAL RECALLED ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED 20.4.2005 VIDE I TS COMMON ORDER DATED 22.9.2009. NOW THE REVENUE HAS FILED THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS IN RELATION TO THE COMMON ORDER DATED 22. 9.2009 TAKING A PLEA THAT U/S 254(2) ANY ORDER CAN BE RECALLED ONLY WIT HIN FOUR YEARS AND NOT BEYOND FOUR YEARS ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY TH E AGGRIEVED PARTY. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS PASSED ON 20.4.2005 AND THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE FILE D ON 20.4.2009 REQUESTING FOR THE RECALL OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. T HIS IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE FOUR YEARS PERIOD AS PER THE DEPARTMENT. ON TH E OTHER HAND, THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS THAT ON 19.4.200 9 WHICH WAS THE LAST DATE FOR FILING OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WIT HIN FOUR YEARS IT WAS A HOLIDAY BEING SUNDAY AND AS PER THE GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, APPEALS FILED ON 20.4.2009 I.E ON MONDAY, THE NEXT WORKING DAY, WOULD BE TREATED AS HAVING BEEN FILED WITHIN FOUR YEARS. 3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE CONV INCED THAT THE LAST DAY WHICH FELL WITHIN FOUR YEARS I.E 19.4.2009 FELL ON A HOLIDAY BEING SUNDAY AND AS PER GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 20.4.2009 WO ULD BE TREATED M.P 79&108/2010 :- 3 -: AS THE LAST DAY OF FOUR YEARS. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED BY THE LD.AR THAT SUBSEQUENTLY ON ORAL DIRECTIONS OF THE BENCH, SEPAR ATE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE FILED ON 4.5.2009 FOR TWO SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT 19.4.2009 F ELL ON SUNDAY, A HOLIDAY, THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WER E FILED WITHIN FOUR YEARS ONLY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH CAN BE NOW RECTIFIED. WHEN THE SEPARATE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS WERE FILED TO REMOVE THE DEFECT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE BENCH, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO REMOVAL OF DEFECT AND WOULD NOT PUSH THE ORIGINAL DATE OF FILING TO T HE DATES WHEN THE DEFECTS WERE ACTUALLY REMOVED. OTHERWISE ALSO THE REVENUE COULD HAVE TAKEN THAT OBJECTION AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGIN AL HEARING OF THE APPEALS IN CASE THERE WAS NO SUCH DIRECTION BY THE BENCH AND THE APPEALS WERE BEYOND PERMITTED TIME. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 13.10.2010. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13 TH OCTOBER, 2010 RD COPY TO: APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR