SANKARAN RAVI Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER challenges Ext. P3 order of the 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 the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is an ex parte order and that his application Ext. P4 for recalling the final order could not be considered because the Tribunal is not sitting. From the order of Tribunal, it is seen that there was no appearance on behalf of the assessee. In Ext. P-4 application, no particulars are given. That apart, the order of the Tribunal was passed on 27th Feb., 1998, whereas the application for recalling the order was filed only on 27th Jan., 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 Ext. P-3 order by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 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. Original petition is accordingly dismissed.