PRASAD PRODUCTIONS (P.) LTD. VS INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
1999 P T D 1981
[226 I T R 778]
[Madras High Court (India)]
Before K.A. Swami C.J. and Raju, J
PRASAD PRODUCTIONS (P.) LTD.
Versus
INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and others
Writ Appeal No.705 of 1995 and C.M.P. No.8450 of 1995, decided on 23/11/1995.
Income-tax
---Appeal to Appellate Tribunal---Rectification of mistakes---Delay in filing appeal---No explanation regarding delay---Tribunal justified in dismissing appeal---No mistake in order of Tribunal which could be rectified---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.254.
Held, dismissing the writ appeal, that there was a delay of six days in filing the appeal to the Tribunal. The appellant did not file any statement or affidavit explaining the delay. The appeal was fixed for hearing on more than one occasion and even then, the appellant did not file any statement or affidavit explaining or showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as barred by time. After the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant filed a petition for rectification of the order. As the order of the Tribunal did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, the Tribunal rejected the petition. This action was rightly upheld by the Single Judge.
P.P.S. Janarthana Raja for Appellant.
S.V. Subramanian for N.V. Balasubramaniam for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
JUDGMENT
K.A. SWAMI C.J.---This appeal is preferred against the order, dated February 27, 1995, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 1387 of 1995.
In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the order, dated October 6, 1994, passed by the first respondent in M.P. No. 30 of 1994 filed in I. T. A. No. 1224/Mds of 1989. The learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner did not explain the delay in filing the appeal, as .the appeal was filed six days beyond the period of limitation. The said appeal ought to have been filed on April 1, 1989, whereas it was filed on April 7, 1989. Thus, there was a delay of six days in filing the appeal. There was no explanation either in' the memorandum of appeal nor any statement was filed explaining the said delay of six days in filing the appeal. Thus, no statement or affidavit was filed alongwith a memo, showing sufficient cause for the Said delay of six days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal, immediately issued a direct memo. on May 8, 1994, to rectify the defect. Even thereafter, the appellant did not file any statement or affidavit explaining the delay. The appeal was fixed for hearing on more than one occasion and even then, the appellant did not file any statement or affidavit, explaining or showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Finally, the appeal was posted for hearing on June 1, 1994. On that day, the assessee's counsel appeared and presented the insufficiently stamped Vakalatnama but he did not file any petition or affidavit or statement for the condonation of delay. Earlier to that on April 28, 1994, when the matter was posted, learned counsel appearing for the assessee appeared and took time. Even then there was no application or statement filed by the appellant for condonation of the delay and, ultimately, the appeal was heard and dismissed on June 3, 1994, by the Tribunal, on the ground that the delay had not been explained. Thus, the appeal was dismissed as barred by time. After the dismissal of the appeal, only on July 12, 1994, the appellant filed a miscellaneous petition (M.P. No.30 of 1994) alongwith an affidavit in support of it for rectification of the alleged defect in the order of the Tribunal, dated June 3, 1994, under section 254 of the Income-tax Act. As the order of the Tribunal did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, in the light of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the Tribunal rejected the said miscellaneous petition by the order, dated October 6, 1994. The learned Single Judge has also held that in the absence of any explanation, the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the appeal as the order of the Tribunal, dated June 3, 1994, did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.
We issued a notice to learned senior standing counsel for the Department only to find out as to whether the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal could be heard on the merits, in view of the fact that the appellant had paid the taxes. In the light of the aforesaid facts, learned senior standing counsel submitted that once the appeal had been rejected as barred by time, there was no justification nor was it permissible for the Tribunal to entertain any application to rectify the order, which did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. We are of the ,view that the submission made by learned senior standing counsel. for the Department is quite in conformity with the provisions contained in section 254 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal is rejected. C.M.P. No.8450 of 1995 is also rejected.
M.B.A./1938/FC ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal rejected.