M/s. Indira Nivas, Srivilliputhur v. ITO, Virudhunagar

MA 19/CHNY/2011 | 1994-1995
Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1921724 RSA 2011
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number MA 19/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Indira Nivas, Srivilliputhur
Respondent ITO, Virudhunagar
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 25-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 25-03-2011
Assessment Year 1994-1995
Appeal Filed On 14-02-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:D- BENCH: CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JM & SHRI AB RAHAM P GEORGE AM) MP NO. 19/MDS/11 (IN ITA NO 1908/MDS/05) ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 M/S INDIRA NIVAS VS. THE I.T.O. 48-49 VALAIKULAM STREET SRIVILLIPUTHUR. WAR D I(1). VIRUDHUNAGAR (GIR NO.I-3305) (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY: SHRI P.S.THANGARAJ RESPONDENT BY: SHRISHAJI P.JACOB ORDER PER SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THROUGH THIS MISC. PETITION ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR MODI FICATION OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 21-11-2008 IN ITA NO.1908/MD S/05. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IN ANOTHER APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR LD. CIT(A) HAD REMITT ED THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL R EQUIRES MODIFICATION. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL AGGRIEVED ON MP NO.19/MDS/11 2 THE REJECTION OF ITS REVISED RETURN BY THE AO WHIC H WAS CONFIRMED BY LD.CIT(A). THIS TRIBUNAL IN PARA-12 OF ITS ORDER HELD AS UNDER : 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE INVOLVED BEFORE US 9S WHETHER THE REVISED RETURN SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDE RED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE CIT(A) HAS HELD IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 A GAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER IN ITA NO.89/01-02 DATED 23-11-2004. IN THIS PETITION IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOU LD HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON RECORD IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ION THE APPELLATE ORD ER DATED 23-11-2004 IT WAS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED THE ORIGINAL RETU RN BELATEDLY AFTER THE DUE DATE LAID DOWN U/S 139(1) AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE REVISED RETURN. THE ABOVE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. HE ACCEPTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETU RN WAS FILED AFTER THE DUE DATE LAID DOWN U/S 139(1). THAT BEING THE CASE THE ASSE SSEE DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE ANY REVISED RETURN AND EVEN IF REVISED RETU RN WAS FILED THE SAME COULD NOT BE TAKEN ON RECORD AS PER THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THUS THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO MODIFY THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE ASSESSEES PETITION U/S 154 IS REJECTED. 3. AS MENTIONED BY THE TRIBUNAL THERE IS NO PROVIS ION BY WHICH A REVISED RETURN CAN BE CONSIDERED WHERE THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED BELATEDLY. LD. AR WAS UNABLE TO SHOW ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL MUCH LESS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. WE THE REFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THIS MISC. PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 25- 03-201 1. . . SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI: 25TH MARCH 2011. CC: THE ASSESSEE 2)THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3)THE C IT(A) 4) THE CIT 5)THE D.R 6)GUARD FILE. MP NO.19/MDS/11 3 NBR