G. Babu, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

MA 80/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8923 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SIVASHANMUGAM; K LEELAKRISHNAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO.80/MDS/2012 (IN M.P NO.47/MDS/2012 IN ITA NO. 1585/M DS/2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SHRI G.BABU C/O. SHRI K.LEELA KRISHNAN, 995/B-5, GNANALAKSHMI BUILDING, METTUPALAYAM ROAD,R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE-641 002. PAN:AMNPB0185C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III(2), COIMBATORE. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MR. S.SIVASHANMUGAM, ADVOCA TE & MR. K.LEELAKRISHNAN, AR RESPONDENT BY : MR. M.N .MURTHY NAIK, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 24 TH AUGUST , 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 TH AUGUST, 2012 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.80/MDS/2012 HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE APPLICANT/ASSESSEE FOR RESTO RATION OF M.P.NO.47/MDS/2012. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPEAL IMPUGNING THE O RDER OF CIT(A)-I, COIMBATORE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2012 . THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE G IVING M.P.NO.80/MDS/2012 2 DETAILED REASONS THEREIN. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FOR RECTIFYING THE ALLEGED M ISTAKES IN THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2012. THE AFORESAID M.P. WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 25.05.2012. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE MISCEL LANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS VIDE ORDER DATED 25.05.2012 AFTER EXAMINING THE GROUNDS AS WELL AS T HE JUDGEMENTS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. BOTH THE APPE AL AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FOR RECT IFICATION OF ORDER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS WELL AS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO GROUND TO INTERFERE IN THE O RDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITI ON FOR RECTIFICATION, ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. RATHER IN THE GARB OF PETITIO N FOR RECTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE PETITION FOR RE- APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSI BLE IN LAW. 3. DE-HORS MERITS OF THE CASE, THE SECOND MISCELLAN EOUS PETITION FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL OR M.P.NO.80/MDS/2012 3 RESTORATION APPLICATION OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE HONBLE ORISS A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITAT REPORTED AS 196 I TR 838 HAS HELD THAT AN ORDER REJECTING THE APPLICATION FO R RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS NOT AN ORDER PASSED UNDER S ECTION 254(1) AND IT CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254 (2). THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. S.PANE ERSELVAM VS. CIT REPORTED AS 319 ITR 135 RELYING ON THE JUDG EMENT OF THE HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT SECOND APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS DI SMISSED BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY , THE 24 TH OF AUGUST, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 24 TH AUGUST, 2012. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.