Mrs. Sabita Sharma V. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2)

ITA/788/2007

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Mrs. Sabita Sharma against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which dismissed her Miscellaneous Petition seeking rectification of a previous order. The original dispute pertained to the assessment year 1989-90, where the appellant contested the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer. The Tribunal's earlier orders had not allowed the appellant an opportunity to cross-examine a witness, a point emphasized by the CIT (Appeals) in 1998. However, the Tribunal dismissed the rectification application, viewing it as an attempt to review its earlier decision, which is beyond the scope of rectification under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the appellant had not raised the issue of cross-examination in her earlier appeals and had not pointed out any mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 807630 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: KAMALADAR
• Assessee Lawyers: K MALLAHARAO
• Keywords: Cross Examination; Cross-examination; Income tax appeal; Rectification; Assessment Year 1989-90
• Section: 254; 260-A

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2014 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.MANOHAR ITA No.788/2007 BETWEEN: Mrs.Sabita Sharma, W/o.Sri.L.V.Sharma, Aged about 62 years, No.662, 1st Main Road, Defence Colony, Indiranagar, Bangalore – 560 038. ….Appellant (By Sri.K.Mallaharao, Adv for Sri.S.Parthasarathi, Adv) AND: The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), 4th Floor, ‘B’ Wing, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore. ..Respondent (By Sri.Kamaladar, Adv for Sri.K.V.Aravind, Adv) 2 This ITA is filed under Sec.260-A of Income Tax Act 1961, arising out of Order dated 19-06-2007 passed in MP.No.44/Bang/2007(in ITA No.380/Bang/04), for the Assessment Year 1989-90, praying that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: i. formulate the substantial questions of law stated therein. ii. allow the appeal and set aside the order of the ITAT, bearing No.MP.No.44/Bang/2007 (in ITA.No.380/Bang/04), dated 19-06-2007 in the interest of justice and equity. This appeal is coming on for Hearing this day, DILIP B. BHOSALE J., delivered the following: P.C. This income tax appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the order dated 19th June 2007 rendered by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench ‘B’ (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereby the Miscellaneous Petition No.44/2007 filed by the appellant-assessee under Section 254 of the Act, seeking rectification of the 3 common order of the Tribunal in ITA No.380/2004 and ITA No.1199/2002, has been dismissed. 2. The Tribunal while dismissing the Miscellaneous petition observed that it is in the nature of seeking review of the order of the Tribunal, which is beyond the scope of rectification of any order under Section 254 of the Act. 3. Mr.K.Mallaharao, learned counsel appearing for the assessee, at the outset, invited our attention to the order of the CIT (Appeals) dated 27-02-1998 and submitted that as observed by the CIT (Appeals), no opportunity was given to the assessee to cross-examine the witness. The relevant observations made by the CIT(A) in the order dated 27-2-1998 read thus: In view of the facts mentioned above, I am strongly of the view that the case deserves re-examination. As mentioned above, the very first thing to be examined is whether printout on which the A.O relied for framing the assessment is a 4 genuine one. For this action guidelines have been given above. However, they are only illustrative and not exhaustive. The A.O. should try to verify the genuineness in whatever way he finds it possible. Further, unless some real effort is made to prove the genuineness of the statement on which the A.O. has relied, the entire addition becomes addition based on unreal statement of transactions. When the appellant has submitted another statement from the same broker relating to the same assessment year, such a verification is even more necessary. Moreover, the A.O. should try to allow cross examination as desired by the appellant. I find that no such effort has been made. The assessment made by the A.O. is, therefore, set aside to be framed denovo. (emphasis supplied) Learned counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the application for rectification ought to have been allowed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter for cross examination of the witnesses by the assessee. In our opinion, the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-assessee deserves to be rejected for more than one reason. The assessee did not 5 raise such contention before the Tribunal when the Tribunal decided ITA No.380/2004 and ITA No.1199/2002 vide order dated 30th March 2007. That apart, the order of the Tribunal was not carried in appeal by the assessee. In other words, this order (dated 30.3.2007) was not challenged on merits by the assessee and he sought rectification by filing an application under Section 254 of the Act. The only contention urged before us was that an opportunity to the assessee was not accorded to cross-examine the witness despite the observations made by the CIT(A) in its order dated 27-02-1998. We have perused the order of the Tribunal dated 30th March 2007 and we do not find that such a grievance was made by the assessee before the Tribunal when the appeals were disposed of. 4. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the Tribunal in the impugned order, has rightly observed 6 that by filing an application under Section 254 of the Act the assessee virtually sought review of the order of the Tribunal dated 30th March 2007 which is not permissible, and that under this provision one can seek rectification of any mistake apparent from the record. Learned counsel for the assessee could not and did not point out any mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application. In our opinion, no substantial question of law is either involved or arise for our consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-* "