Richline Pharma Ltd., Hyderabad v. JCIT (Assts), Hyderabad

MA 123/HYD/2010 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 12322524 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ACYPY7396P
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number MA 123/HYD/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Richline Pharma Ltd., Hyderabad
Respondent JCIT (Assts), Hyderabad
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 16-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 16-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 11-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 11-03-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 01-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLN. NO.123/HYD/2010 (IN ITA NO.252/HYD/02) : ASST T. YEAR 1994-95 M/S. RICHLINE PHARMA LTD. HYDERABAD ( PAN ACYPY 7396 P ) V/S. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSTS) SPECIAL RANGE-6 HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI A.V.RAGHURAM RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.V.PRASAD REDDY DATE OF HEARING 9.9.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.9.2011 O R D E R PER G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ASSESSEE HAS R EQUESTED FOR RECALLING THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 IN ITA NO.252/HYD/2002 DATED 31.5.2005 WHEREIN THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED IN LIMINE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PROSECUTION O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT RECALLING ORDER MAY BE PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 WHICH EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL THE EX- PARTE ORDER WHERE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARANCE ON BEHALF O F THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS INHERE NT JURISDICTION FOR SUCH RECALLING ORDER EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE EX-PARTE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE RELIED ON A NUMB ER OF DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE AS UNDER- MISC. APPLN. NO.123/HYD/2010(IN ITA NO.252/HYD/02) M/S. RICHLINE PHARMA LTD. HYDERABAD 2 (A) ELGIN MILLS CO. LTD. V/S. CIT (288 ITR 85)-ALL. (B) ITO ASSESSMENT II CALICUT AND ANOTHER V/S. FAGOOM AL LAKSHMI CHAND AND ANOTHER (118 ITR 766)-MAD (C) MANGAT RAM KUTHIALA (DECD. ) AND OTHERS V/S. CIT P UNJAB AND OTHERS (38 ITR 1)-PUNJAB (D) KUSHALCHAND B. DAGA V/S. T.K. SURENDRAN 4 TH INCOME-TAX OFFICER A-1 WARD AND OTHERS (85 ITR 48)-BOM (E) INCOME TAX OFFICER F-WARD DISTRICT IV(2) AND OTHE RS V/S. MURLIDHAR SARDA AND ANOTHER (99 ITR 485)- CAL. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS OP POSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . HE SUBMITTED THAT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AS THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED AF TER THE EXPIRY OF FIVE YEARS AND 11 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT PROVISION OF S.254(2) IS CLEAR ON THE ISSUE WHICH LAYS DOWN THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER CAN RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN ITS ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO EXTEND THE LIMITATION PROV IDED IN S.254(2) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE-LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY. WE FIND THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED UND ER S.254(2) OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATION BY ONE YEAR AND 11 DAYS I.E. 376 DAYS. THE PROVISIONS OF S.254(2) ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER- S.254 (1).. (2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ANY TIM E WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MI STAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECT ION (1) AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO IT S NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER; PROVIDED .. MISC. APPLN. NO.123/HYD/2010(IN ITA NO.252/HYD/02) M/S. RICHLINE PHARMA LTD. HYDERABAD 3 A SIMPLE READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.254(2) MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FORM THE DATE OF THE ORDER WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD CAN AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER S.254(1) OF THE ACT. WE FIND T HAT RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 CANNOT BE READ IN ISOLATION A ND HAS TO BE READ WITH PROVISION OF S.254(2) OF THE ACT. RULES PRESCRIBE D COULD NOT SUPERSEDE THE PROVISIONS OF AN ENACTMENT PASSED BY THE PARLIAMENT AND ANY VIEW TAKEN CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL NOT BE SUSTAINABLE. THE CASE-LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE A RE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS NO INHERENT POWER TO EX TEND THE LIMITATION PERIOD IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE SPECIFIC PROVISION OF TIME L IMIT PROVIDED UNDER THE PROVISION OF S.254(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED UNDER S.254(2) WAS PREFERRED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE FOUR YEARS PERIOD FROM THE DATE OF PASSING OF T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND WAS LATE BY ONE YEAR AND 11 DAYS. IN THESE FACTS O F THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.254(2) WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE TRI BUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN IT S ORDER AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ORDER. A CCORDINGLY THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.254(2) OF THE A CT IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND IS DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16.9.2011 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (G.C.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 16TH SEPTEMBER 2011 MISC. APPLN. NO.123/HYD/2010(IN ITA NO.252/HYD/02) M/S. RICHLINE PHARMA LTD. HYDERABAD 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. RICHLINE PHARMA LTD. FLAT NO. IV D DHRUVTAR A APARTMENTS SOMAJIGUDA HYDERABAD 2. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(ASSESSMENT ) SP L. RANGE 6 HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) - III HYDERABAD. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - II HYDERABAD 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. B.V.S.