" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी एबी टी. वक , \u0011ा ियक सद\" एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद\" क े सम) BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A Nos.122 & 123/Chny/2024 (Arises out of ITA Nos.956 & 957/Chny/2022) िनधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Smt. B. Kamakshi, [L/H. of Shri Bezwada venkatram Reddy (deceased), Flat F3, Prakruthi Apartments, 20, Dr. Ranga Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. PAN: AGDPB 3601R Vs. The DCIT, Central circle-3(4), Chennai. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellan) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA /0थ की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : By way of these Miscellaneous Applications (MAs), the assessee seeks recall of the common order of the Tribunal passed in ITA Nos. 956 & 957/Chny/2024 dated 17.05.2024 for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. 2. The Ld. Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee has submitted that the appeals in the above cases were disposed of by the Printed from counselvise.com M.A Nos.122 & 123/Chny/2024 Smt. B. Kamakshi, :- 2 -: Tribunal on 17.05.2024, confirming the additions of Rs. 26,62,978/- for A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs. 9,85,269/- for A.Y. 2012-13. The Ld. AR further submitted that, the Hon’ble ITAT in the common order passed for Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2010-11, had deleted the additions for those years on the ground that the transactions related to companies in which the assessee held only 1% shareholding and had resigned from directorship in December 2009. The Ld. AR contended that the assessee had filed additional evidence in 75 pages on 24.03.2023 before the Hon’ble Bench, evidencing that he was a Director in Jayam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ruby Realty Pvt. Ltd. up to 24.05.2013, and not up to December 2009 as noted in the Tribunal’s order. The Ld. AR therefore submitted that these evidences, which were crucial to the adjudication of the appeals for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13, were not considered by the Hon’ble Tribunal, and hence the order may be recalled to that extent. 3. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, has submitted that there was no apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal and therefore, the Miscellaneous Applications deserve to be dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com M.A Nos.122 & 123/Chny/2024 Smt. B. Kamakshi, :- 3 -: 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Tribunal, in its common order in ITA Nos. 951 to 957/Chny/2022 for A.Ys. 2006-07 to 2012-13, had adjudicated the appeals and deleted the protective additions made for A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010-11 on account of deposits in undisclosed bank accounts in the name of the assessee. The appeals were allowed on the basis of facts that the assessee was director in the group companies only up to December 2009. However, the assessee had filed additional evidence before the Tribunal on 24.05.2023 in 75 pages evidencing that he had resigned from directorship in Jayam Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ruby Realty Pvt. Ltd. only on 24.05.2013, and not in December 2009 as mentioned in the order. The details of directorship furnished by the assessee are as under: Company Name Date of appointment as Director Date of filing form with ROC Date of resignation as Director Date of filing form with ROC Anush Infrastructure P Ltd. 26.12.2005 18.01.2006 08.12.2009 04.11.2010 Jayam Infrastructure P. Ltd. 16.11.2006 28.11.2006 24.05.2013 11.09.2013 Menakur Infrastructure P. Ltd. 29.12.2005 12.01.2006 20.04.2006 28.08.2006 Sukven Infrastructure P. Ltd. 04.08.2004 06.04.2010 03.11.2010 Platinum Holdings P. Ltd. 24.04.2006 24.04.2006 04.06.2020 03.11.2010 Ruby Realty P. Ltd. 24.04.2006 24.04.2006 24.05.2013 12.12.2014 5. In view of the above, we find merit in the submission of the Ld. AR that the additional evidences were not considered while passing Printed from counselvise.com M.A Nos.122 & 123/Chny/2024 Smt. B. Kamakshi, :- 4 -: the order for A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13. Accordingly, we recall the Tribunal’s order dated 17.05.2024 in ITA Nos. 956 & 957/Chny/2024 for the limited purpose of considering the said additional evidence. The Registry is directed to fix the appeals for hearing in the regular course and issue notices to both the parties accordingly. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced on 08th day of October, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY. T. Varkey) \u0011ाियक सद\" / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा सद\" /Accountant Member चे\u0010नई/Chennai, \u0013दनांक/Dated: 08th October, 2025. EDN/- आदेश क\u0016 \bितिल\u0019प अ\u001aे\u0019षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\b/Appellant 2. थ\b/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u0010/CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0019 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "