M/s. Valarmathi Silks, Kancheepuram v. ACIT, Vellore

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. NOS. 235 & 236/MDS/2003 (IN I.T.A. NOS. 2542 & 2541/MDS/92) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1988-89 & 1989-90 M/S VALARMATHI SILKS 12 METTU STREET KANCHIPURAM 631 501. (APPLICANT) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I(2) KANCHIPURAM 631 501. (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS GRIE VANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIS MISSED ITS EARLIER PETITION FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N I.T.A. NO. 2542 & 2541/MDS/92 DATED 18.8.93. AGAINST THE VERY SAME A PPEALS ASSESSEE EARLIER FILED MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS NUMB ERED AS 72/MDS/2002 166 & 167/MDS/97. SUCH PETITIONS WERE DISMISSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THEY WERE TIME BARRED. M.A. NO. 235 & 236/MDS/03 2 2. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NUMBERED AS 234/MDS/03 WHICH ALSO SOUGHT RECALL OF THE ORDER DA TED 13.3.2003 OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN M.P. NO. 72/MDS/2002 166 & 167/MD S/97. IT WAS HELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL THAT VIDE THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR.S. PANNEERSELVAM V. AC IT REPORTED IN 319 ITR 135 ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN MISCELLANEO US PETITION NUMBERED AS 72/MDS/2002 166 & 167/MDS/97 WHICH WE RE DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON 13.3.2003 AND THE ORIGINAL O RDER IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 2541 AND 2542/MDS/92 HAD MERGED AND THEREFORE FURTHER MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS UNDER SE CTION 254(2) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED. 3. WHEN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WERE CALLED UP FOR HEARING NOBODY ENTERED APPEARAN CE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS FILED ADJOURNMENT PETITION. EXCEPT CITING PERSONAL INCONVENIENCE NO REASON WHATSOEVER IS GIVEN IN THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION. WE ALSO FIND THAT THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED AS EARLY AS 20.10.2003 AND WHEN IT WAS EARLIER POSTED FOR HEARING ON 8.10. 2010 NOBODY ENTERED APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE A RE THEREFORE NOT INCLINED TO GRANT THE ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT FOR WH ICH IS REJECTED. M.A. NO. 235 & 236/MDS/03 3 LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY OPPOSED THE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPLICATIONS. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN AND AGAIN TRY ING TO WAKE UP THE SAME ISSUE WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS AND IT IS SEEKING A REVIEW OF NOT ONLY THE ORIGINAL ORDER BUT ALSO THE ORDERS IN THE EARLI ER MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS. THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT VESTED WITH ANY SU CH POWER OF REVIEW. THEREFORE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE DEVOI D OF ANY MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (AB RAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER CHENNAI. DATED THE 3 RD DECEMBER 2010. KRI. COPY TO: APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE