Sri Irappa M Shedshal, Belgaum V. ACIT, Belgaum

MA 82/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8416 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 82/BANG/2019 (IN M.P. NO. 101/BANG/2009 (IN IT(SS)A NO. 01/PNJ/1997 ) ) BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1986 TO 10.07.1996 SHRI IRAPPA M. SHEDSHAL, REPRESENTED BY L/H SHRI KIRAN I. SHEDSHAL, SARAF COLONY, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELGAUM. PAN: AABCT9826D VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INV), CIRCLE II, BELAGAVI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT & M.P. NO. 107/BANG/2019 (IN IT(SS)A NO. 01/PNJ/1997) BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1986 TO 10.07.1996 SHRI IRAPPA M. SHEDSHAL, REPRESENTED BY L/H SHRI KIRAN I. SHEDSHAL, SARAF COLONY, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELGAUM. PAN: AABCT9826D VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INV), CIRCLE II, BELAGAVI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. SHEETAL BORKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI K.V. ARVIND, STANDING COUNSEL FOR DEPT. DATE OF HEARING : 2 7 .0 9 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 . 1 0.2019 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER OUT OF THESE TWO M.PS., ONE M.P. I.E. M.P. NO. 82/BANG/2019 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE. IN COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 24.09.2019 AS PER WHICH, THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO WITHDRAW M.P. NO. 82/BANG/2019. ACCORDINGLY, THIS M.P. IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 2. NOW WE TAKE UP THE SECOND M.P. NO. 101/BANG/2019. AS PER THIS M.P., THIS IS THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TWO APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE HON'BLE M.P. NOS. 82 & 107/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 3 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BY ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 5060 & 5061/2010 AND THESE TWO APPEALS WERE DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AS PER ITS JUDGMENT DATED 17.11.2011. SHE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT AND POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THIS JUDGMENT, THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS ALLOWED BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BOTH THE ISSUES I.E. M.P. NO. 101/BANG/2009 AND IT(SS)A NO. 01/PNJ/1997 WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF TRIBUNAL WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS BUT ON 27.03.2019, ALTHOUGH BOTH WERE FIXED FOR HEARING I.E. M.P. NO. 101/BANG/2009 AND IT(SS)A NO. 01/PNJ/1997 BUT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISPOSED OF ONLY M.P. NO. 101/BANG/2009 AS PER THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 05.04.2019. HENCE THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO. 01/PNJ/1997 IS STILL UNDECIDED AFTER RESTORATION BY HONBLE KARNATAKA HUGH COURT AND THE SAME IS TO BE DECIDED. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IS ALSO SUBMITTED AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT REGARDING M.P. NO. 101/BANG/2009 AND IT(SS)A NO. 01/PNJ/1997. SHE SUBMITTED THAT HENCE, IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE. 3. AS AGAINST THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE THAT IF THIS M.P. IS CONSIDERED AS AGAINST THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN M.P. NO. 101/BANG/2009 DATED 05.04.2019, THEN THE SAME HAS TO BE DISMISSED BECAUSE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2), M.P. AGAINST M.P. DOES NOT LIE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IF THIS M.P. IS CONSIDERED AGAINST THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN IT(SS)A NO. 01/PNJ/1997, THEN ALSO THIS M.P. HAS TO BE DISMISSED BECAUSE THIS M.P. IS TIME BARRED IN THAT SITUATION. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN IT(SS)A NO. 01/PNJ/1997 IS DATED 31.08.2001 AND THE PRESENT M.P. IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 11.09.2019 AND HENCE, THE SAME IS TIME BARRED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS M.P. HAS TO BE DISMISSED AS ARGUED BY LD. DR OF REVENUE BECAUSE IF THIS M.P. IS CONSIDERED AS AN M.P. AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.04.2019 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN M.P. NO. 101/BANG/2009, THEN THIS M.P. HAS TO BE DISMISSED FOR THIS REASON THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2), THE M.P. CANNOT BE FILED AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN M.P. PROCEEDINGS. ALTERNATIVELY, IF THIS M.P. IS CONSIDERED AS M.P. AGAINST THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN IT(SS)A NO. M.P. NOS. 82 & 107/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 3 01/PNJ/1997, THEN ALSO THIS M.P. HAS TO BE DISMISSED AS TIME BARRED BECAUSE THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS DATED 31.08.2001 IN IT(SS)A NO. 01/PNJ/1997 WHEREAS THIS PRESENT M.P. IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SEPTEMBER 2019. REGARDING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT IF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR A FRESH DECISION IN IT(SS)A NO. 01/PNJ/1997 AS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT APPEAL, THEN THE ASSESSEE CAN APPROACH THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD IF SO ADVISED BUT IN M.P. PROCEEDINGS, THIS ISSUE CANNOT BE RAISED AND DECIDED BECAUSE IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 254 (2), ONLY THIS CLAIM CAN BE RAISED AND DECIDED AS TO WHETHER THERE IS ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN A TRIBUNAL ORDER PASSED U/S 154 (1). HENCE, WE DISMISS THIS M.P. ALSO. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE M.PS. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 11 TH OCTOBER, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.