2008 (5) TMI 460 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing cross objections for assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92.
2. Filing of applications for condonation of delay in other assessment years.
3. Jurisdiction and authority of the Vice President to prepone hearing dates.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Cross Objections for Assessment Years 1990-91 and 1991-92:
The assessee argued that the Tribunal had already condoned the delay in filing cross objections for the assessment years 1990-91 and 1991-92, as per the order dated 15-7-2002. The Tribunal had committed an apparent error by dismissing the cross objections for these years as time-barred in its order dated 16-5-2006. The Tribunal acknowledged this mistake, noting that it had indeed condoned the delay previously, and thus, the cross objections should have been decided on merit. Consequently, the Tribunal recalled its order dated 16-5-2006 and restored the appeals and cross objections to their original numbers.

2. Filing of Applications for Condonation of Delay in Other Assessment Years:
The assessee contended that applications for condonation of delay in filing cross objections had been filed for each assessment year and were already on record. The Tribunal had erred in assuming that no petitions for condonation of delay had been filed. The Tribunal recognized this error, stating that the applications for condonation of delay were indeed on record. This misapprehension led to the wrongful dismissal of the cross objections as time-barred. As a result, the Tribunal recalled its order dated 16-5-2006 and restored the appeals and cross objections to their original numbers.

3. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Vice President to Prepone Hearing Dates:
The assessee argued that the Vice President did not have the jurisdiction to prepone the hearing date from 5-6-2006 to 1-5-2006, as this action amounted to a review of the judicial order passed by the Bench. The Tribunal examined the relevant provisions of Section 255 of the Income-tax Act and the ITAT Rules, 1963. It concluded that the Vice President had the authority to regulate the procedure of the Benches, including fixing hearing dates. The Tribunal noted that the Vice President had preponed the hearing date to streamline the disposal of old appeals and had duly communicated this change to the assessee through registered post. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in "State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand" and "Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala," emphasizing the administrative control vested in the Chief Justice and the importance of roster management. The Tribunal found that the Vice President's actions were within his administrative powers and did not amount to a review of the Bench's order. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's submission on this issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous applications of the assessee, recalling its order dated 16-5-2006, and directed the Registry to post the appeals for hearing in due course. The Tribunal acknowledged the apparent errors regarding the condonation of delay and the filing of applications for condonation of delay. However, it upheld the Vice President's authority to regulate the procedure and fix hearing dates, dismissing the assessee's challenge to the preponement of the hearing date.