Smt. E.Rukmani, Avanashi v. ACIT, Coimbatore

MA 352/CHNY/2009 | 1993-1994
Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 35221724 RSA 2009
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number MA 352/CHNY/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Smt. E.Rukmani, Avanashi
Respondent ACIT, Coimbatore
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 10-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 10-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 03-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 03-12-2010
Assessment Year 1993-1994
Appeal Filed On 26-10-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: A- BENCH:CHENN AI (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA NOS. 350 TO 352/MDS/09 IN ITA NOS.2203 TO 2205 MDS/96 ASST. YEARS 1991-92 TO 1993-94 SMT.E.RUKMANI 95B SRINIVASAPURAM MAIN RD. AVINASHI 641654 VS THE ACIT CENTRAL CIR.II COIMBATORE (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: RESPONDENT BY: NONE SRI SHAJI P. JACOB ORDER PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THESE MISC. PETITIONS GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD SUSTAINED THE REWORKING OF THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME AND SUSTAINED THE ASSESSMENT OF CASH CREDIT AND THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE TRIBUNAL WAS EXPARTE 2. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE SUCH EXPARTE ORDER WA S APPEALED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT AND SUCH APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT FOR A RE ASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD MP NOS.350-2/MDS/09 2 NOT APPROACHED THE TRIBUNAL UNDER RULE 24/25 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963. THEREFORE THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE EXPARTE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE RECALLED. 3. WHEN THE PETITIONS WERE CALLED UPON FOR HEARING NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THERE IS A PETITI ON FOR ADJOURNMENT FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WE FIND THAT A LAR GE NUMBER OF ADJOURNMENTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED ON REQUEST O F THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. NO GOOD REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR S EEKING THE ADJOURNMENT. WE FIND NO REASON TO KEEP THESE MISC. PETITIONS FILED AS EARLY AS ON THE 26 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 PENDING. THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION IS REJECTED. 4. LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT THE PETITIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEYOND FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HAD TO BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE READ THE MISC. PETITIONS CAREFULLY AND H EARD THE LD. DR. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS BEEN ASSAILED I N THE MISC. PETITIONS IS DATED 21-10-2003 AND THE MISC. PETITIONS FILED ON 2 6-10-2009 ARE WELL BEYOND THE FOUR YEAR PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SEC.(2 ) OF SEC. 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT). AS PER ASSESSEE THE PETITIONS MP NOS.350-2/MDS/09 3 FILED BY HER ARE ON THE BASIS OF RULES 24 AND 25 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AND NOT RECTIFICATION APPLICATIONS UNDER SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE DEFINED IN SECTIONS 252 TO 255 OF THE ACT AND THE TRIBUNAL AFTER PASSING AN ORDER HAS BEEN VEST ED ONLY A POWER FOR RECTIFICATION OF A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD VID E SUB-SEC.(2) OF SEC. 254 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PETITIONS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERE D AS FILED FOR RECTIFICATION OF A MISTAKE. WE FIND FROM THE RECORD S THAT THESE PETITIONS ARE ALL FILED WELL BEYOND THE FOUR YEARS LIMIT. HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THI S TRIBUNAL HELD AT PARA-3 AS UNDER: 3. IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES IF WE WERE TO ENTERT AIN THIS APPEAL IT WILL BE LIKE PAYING A PREMIUM FOR THE UTTER INDIFFE RENCE DISPLAYED BY THE APPELLANT IN NOT PROSECURING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. MORE SO WHEN THE APPELLANT FAILED TO EXHAUST THE R EMEDY AVAILABL;E TO HER AS PROVIDED UNDER THE RELEVANT RULES VIZ. R ULE 25 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1983 IF THESE APPEALS AR E ENTERTAINED AT THIS DISTANT POINT OF TIME IT WILL UNSETTLE SETTLE D THINGS WHICH WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ALLOW. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FI ND ANY SCOPE TO ENTERTAIN THESE APPEALS. THE APPEALS FAIL AND THE S AME ARE DISMISSED. CONSEQUENTLY M.P NO.1 OF 20099 IN TC (A) NOS.291 A ND 291 OF 20 ARE CLOSED. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT HELD THAT ENTERTAINING APPEALS AT SUCH DISTANT POINT OF TIME WOULD UNSETTLE SETTLED MP NOS.350-2/MDS/09 4 THINGS. WE THUS FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISC. PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE MISC. PETITIONS ARE DISMISSED . ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 -12-2010. SD/- SD/- ( HARI OM MARATHA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI: 10TH DEC. 2010 NBR CC: ASSESSEE/ ASSESSING OFFICER/ CIT(A)/ CIT/ D .R/ GUARD FILE.