M/s. Metropolitan Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., CHENNAI v. JCIT, CHENNAI

MA 283/CHNY/2008 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 28321724 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAACS3789B
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number MA 283/CHNY/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Metropolitan Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., CHENNAI
Respondent JCIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 17-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 17-09-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 17-09-2010
Next Hearing Date 17-09-2010
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 25-09-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI B BENCH CHENNAI. (BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GE ORGE A.M.) M.A. NO. 283/MDS/2008 [IN M.A. 337/MDS/2007 IN I.T.A. NO. 825/MDS/2001] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 M/S. METROPOLITAN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. 490/1- 2 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI 35. [PAN: AAACS3789B] VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE V CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G. BASKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI B. SRINIVAS ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI J.M. BY MEANS OF THIS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE SEEKS T O GET RECALLED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.07.2008 PASSED IN M.P.NO. 337/MDS /2007 IN I.T.A. NO. 825/MDS/2001 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 BY ELABORATING REAS ONS FOR NOT ATTENDING ON THE DATE OF HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IN THE AFF IDAVIT ENCLOSED WITH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE RELYING UPON THE BASIS AND REASONS AS GIVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED ALONG WITH THE APPLICA TION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED FOR RECALLING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WHEN SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT WHETHER ORDER PASSED IN THE MA COULD BE RECALLED UNDER SECTION 25 4(2) HE COULD NOT GIVE ANY APPROPRIATE REPLY BUT JUST PLEADED THAT APPLICATION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING ON THE HEARING O F EARLIER MA. 3. THE LD. DR STRONGLY PLEADED THAT THE MA DOES NO T LIE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN THE MA SO ORDER COULD ONLY BE RECALLED IF ORDER IS PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) AND M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 2 RECTIFICATION OF RECTIFICATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE A ND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ITAT (196 ITR 838) THEREFORE THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE WHI CH SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT BY MEANS OF PRESENT APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO GET RECALLED THE ORDER PASSED IN APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 254(2) AN D THE HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITAT (SUPRA) HAS OPINED AS UNDE R: SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 EMPOWE RS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THEREFORE TO ATTRACT THE APPLICABILITY OF S ECTION 254(2) THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED MUST BE APPARENT FROM THE RE CORD AND THE SAME MUST BE IN ANY ORDER PASSED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 2 54. AN ORDER REJECTING AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS NOT AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) AND IT CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SEC TION 254(2). 4.1 RECENTLY THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. S. PANNEERSELVAM VS. ACIT & OTHERS IN W.P. NOS. 18693 AND 18694 OF 2 006 HAS ALSO TAKEN THE SAME VIEW AND HAS WHILE CONSIDERING THE HONBLE ORISSA HIGH C OURTS DECISION HAS HELD AS UNDER: IN THE PRESENT CASE THE RECTIFICATION WAS O RDERED IN TERMS OF SECTION 254(2) AND IT GOT MERGED WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1). WHAT HAS BEEN REFUSED BY THE TRIBUN AL WHILE ALLOWING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) SHOULD BE READ AS HAVING BEEN REJECTED. THEREFORE THE PETITIONER CANNOT FILE ANOTHER APPLI CATION TO GRANT FURTHER BENEFITS. SUCCESSIVE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER CANNOT BE MAINTAINED AS IT WILL DEFEAT THE OBJECT OF SECTI ON 254(2) OF THE ACT. SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 PROVIDES FOR RE CTIFICATION OF ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT. ONCE THIS HAS BEEN DONE NO FURTHER APPLICATION IS MAINT AINABLE. THE REMEDY BY WAY OF APPEAL IS THE ONLY COURSE OPEN. SINCE THE RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER PASSED IN THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION MOVED UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS PER THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE MADRAS AND ORISSA M.A. M.A. M.A. M.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 283/MDS/08 3 HIGH COURTS DECISIONS (SUPRA) THEREFORE FOLLOWIN G THE SAID DECISIONS WE HOLD THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND AS SUCH SAME IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 17.09.2010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER VM/- DATED :. 17.09.2010. COPY TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.