M/s. SAS Chits Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI v. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 236/CHNY/2007 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 23621724 RSA 2007
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number MA 236/CHNY/2007
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant M/s. SAS Chits Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI
Respondent DCIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 07-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 07-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 10-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 10-12-2010
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 05-01-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH C : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] M.P.NO.236/MDS/07 [ARISING OUT OF I .T.A NO.719/MDS/2001] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98 M/S SAS CHITS PVT. LTD NO.3 MANGESH STREET T. NAGAR CHENNAI - 17 VS THE DY. CIT COMPANY CIRCLE IV(6) CHENNAI (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : DR. ANITA SUMANTH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF I.T.A.NO.719/MDS/2001 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 1997-98 REGARDING A MISTAKE ALLEGEDLY TO BE APPARENT FROM R ECORD IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 25.8.2006. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PETITION ARE AS UNDER: THE RESPONDENT M/S SAS CHITS PRIVATE LIMITED SUBMITS THAT THE DISPUTE HAD BEEN SETTLED BY THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 20.7.2001 WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SATISFIED HIMSELF THAT THE DEBTS IN QUESTION HA VE REALLY BECOME BAD. THE APPELLANT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS FAILED TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 20.7.2001 AND THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN CLOSED. OVERLOOKING A DECISION IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR T HE SAME YEAR IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS. A COP Y OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR REFERENCE. T HE M.P 236/07 :- 2 -: ASSESSEE THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW AS EXPEND ITURE A DEBT WHICH HAS REALLY BECOME BAD. THE CLAIM WAS NOT ONLY A BAD DEBT BUT ALSO IN THE NATURE OF IRREVOCABLE ADVANCE. THE ORDER OF COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) WAS BASED ON THE SUPREME COU RT DECISION IN SHRIRAM CHITS AND INVESTMENTS REPORTED IN AIR(1993) SC 2063 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT RUNNING OF CHIT CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THE ORDER OF SHRI RAJESH KUMAR DE PUTY COMMISSIONER IV(6) GIVING EFFECT TO THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ORDER OF INCOME TAX ACCEPTING T HAT THE ADVANCES HAVE REALLY BECOME BAD WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THAT THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAV E CAREFULLY PERUSED THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS RENDERED BY SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CONSTITUTING THE BENCH. THE CIRCUMSPECTION OF THE PETITION FILED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT IN OUR CONSIDERED OPIN ION DOES NOT MAKE OUT ANY CASE FOR RECTIFICATION BECAUSE NO RECTIFIAB LE MISTAKE(S) HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THEREIN. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN ITS ORDER VIDE PARA 3 [AT PAGE 2] THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WRITTEN OFF DEBTS AS NOTICED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE THERE IS A CLEAR FINDING OF FACT GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER PASSED ON 20.7.2001 WAS NEVER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE R ELEVANT TIME AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PETITION ITSELF THEREFORE DURING PROCEEDINGS U/S 254(2) NO FRESH MATERIAL CAN EITHER BE ENTERTAINED OR ADMITTED BECAUSE IT WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF EARLIER PASSED ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. IN THIS PETITION ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE M.P 236/07 :- 3 -: DEPARTMENT REGARDING NON-PRODUCTION OF CERTAIN EVID ENCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING WHICH ACCORDING TO US IS NOT TENABLE IN LA W IN VIEW OF THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE OR ASSESS EE WAS EQUALLY LIABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE ON WHICH THEY ARE NO W RELYING. HENCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER A ND CANNOT ALLOW THIS PETITION. 3. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION STA NDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.01.11. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7 TH JANUARY 2011 RD COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR