ATTUKAL JEWELLERY Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges exhibit P-3 order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In my view, this original petition is not maintainable since if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision rendered, the only course open to the petitioner is to file a reference application. THE point that is raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is an ex parte order. His application exhibit P-4 could not be considered because of the Tribunal not functioning. From the order, it could be seen that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. In exhibit P-4, it is not stated that the petitioner had entered appearance. That apart, the order was passed on August 29, 1997, and the application was filed only on January 12, 1999.

(2.) IN the above circumstances, prima facie, I do not find any bona fides in the application. This appears to be made only for the purpose of moving under Samadhan Scheme. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with exhibit P-3 order by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia. It is open to the petitioner to move the Tribunal to consider the application. The Tribunal shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations contained in this judgment.