Smt Penmatsa Vijaya Lakshmi, Satthenapalli v. The ITO, Ward-2, Amalapuram

ITA 424/VIZ/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 42425314 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABXPA6359G
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number ITA 424/VIZ/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant Smt Penmatsa Vijaya Lakshmi, Satthenapalli
Respondent The ITO, Ward-2, Amalapuram
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 07-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 02-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 02-12-2010
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 03-08-2010
Judgment Text
ITA 422 423 & 424/VIZ/2010 A LLURI KRISHNAM RAJU RAZOLE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 422 /VIZAG/ 20 10 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 SRI ALLURI KRISHNA M RAJU MLA RAZOLE ITO WARD - 2 AMALAPURAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.ABXPA 6359G ITA NO.423/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 SRI ALLURI SRINIVASA RAJU SATTHENAPALLI ITO WARD - 2 AMALAPURAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ABWPA 86 72P ITA NO.42 4 /VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 PENMATSA VIJAYA LAKSHMI SATTHENAPALLI ITO WARD - 2 AMALAPURAM (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.ALFPP 9228H APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI T.L. PETER DR ORDER P ER SHRI S.K. YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CANDIDLY ADMITTED THAT THE RIGHT FORUM TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THE CIT(A) AND NOT THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE WRONGLY FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE HAS ALSO MADE A REQUEST TO WITHD RAW THE APPEAL FOR THE ABOVE REASONS. BESIDES IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THESE APPEALS ITA 422 423 & 424/VIZ/2010 ALLURI KRISHNAM RAJU RAZOLE 2 ARE TO BE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN OR NON - MAINTAINABLE THE TRIBUNAL FEES DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY KINDLY BE REFUNDED. 2. THE LD. D.R. DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACTUAL ASPECT WITH REGARD TO THE FILING OF THE APPEALS BEFORE A WRONG FORUM. WITH REGARD TO THE REFUND OF TRIBUNAL FEES THE LD. D.R. HAS CONTENDED THAT ONCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ENTERTAINED THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL FE ES DEPOSITED IS EXHAUSTED AND CANNOT BE REFUNDED. 3. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD WE FIND THAT THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED U/S 263 O F THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE THE RIGHT FORUM BEFORE WHICH THE ORDER OF THE A.O. CAN BE CHALLENGED IS THE CIT(A) AND NOT THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE AND WE THEREFORE DISMISS THE SAME. 4. SO FAR AS REFU ND OF TRIBUNAL FEES IS CONCERNED WE HAVE EXAMINED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS GIVEN IN TH E OFFICE MANUAL AND WE FIND UNDER CLAUSE 105 RELATING TO REFUND OF FEES PAID IT IS SPECIFIED THAT THE TRIBUNAL FEES DEPOSITED CAN ONLY BE REFUNDED UNDER THREE CIRCUMSTAN CES WHICH ARE AS UNDER: (I) THE FEE PAID FOR AN APPEAL WHERE IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PAID. (II) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE REQUISITE FEE WITH THE INTENTION OF FILING AN APPEAL/APPLICATION TO THE TRIBUNAL BUT ULTIMATELY DID NOT DO SO. (III) WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF FEE TWICE FEE PAID IN EXCESS IS REFUNDABLE. 5. SINCE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL WITH ANY OF THE CLAUSES AFOREMENTIONED WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL FEES DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REFUNDED. WE ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ONCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ENTERTAINED THOUGH DISMISSED FOR CERTAIN REASONS THE TRIBUNAL FEES CANNOT BE REFUNDED. THE ENTERTAINMENT OF AN APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY POSSIBLE WHERE THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITS THE REQUISITE TRIBUNAL FEES WITHOUT WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL. THEREFORE ONCE THE APPEAL IS ENTERTAINED THE TRIBUNAL FEES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS EXHAUSTED AND IT ITA 422 423 & 424/VIZ/2010 ALLURI KRISHNAM RAJU RAZOLE 3 CANNOT BE REFUNDED BACK ON ITS DIS MISSAL. WE ACCORDINGLY TURN DOWN THE ASSESSEES REQUEST FOR THE REFUND OF THE TRIBUNAL FEES. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7.12 .20 10 SD/ - SD/ - (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATED 7 TH DECEMBER 20 10 COPY TO 1 SRI ALLURI KRISHNAM RAJU MLA (RAZOLE) SAKHINETIPALLI E.G. DIST. 2 SRI ALLURI SRINIVASA RAJU SAKHINETIPALLI E. G. DIST. 3 SMT. PENMATSA VIJAYA LAKSHMI C/O SRI ALLURI KRISHNAM RAJU MLA (RAZOLE) SAKHINETIPALLI. 4 ITO WARD - 2 AMALAPURAM 3 THE CI T RAJAHMUNDRY 4 THE CIT (A) RAJAHMUNDRY 5 THE DR ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM