Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 109/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8913 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DAS GUPTA IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NOS.104 TO 112(MDS)/2012 IN ITA NOS.1622 TO 1630(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2003-04, 2004- 05, 2005-06, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 M/S.ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, 45 & 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600 002. PAN AABCR7106G. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, CHENNAI. (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI R.VIJAYARAGHAVAN , ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.DAS GUPTA, IRS JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 24 TH AUGUST, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 TH AUGUST, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE FILED BY THE AS SESSEE. THEY RELATE TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-0 4, 2004-05, - - MP 104 TO 112 OF 2012 2 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2008-09. THE PETITIO NS ARE IN THE NATURE OF RECTIFICATION PETITIONS. 2. THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED IN THE CONTEXT OF TH E COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 9-5-2012, WH EREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES AND REMITTED BACK THE FILES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R DE NOVO DISPOSAL OF THE ISSUES. 2. NOW, THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE PETITIONER IS THAT ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND EVIDENCES WERE PR ODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT NE CESSARY TO REMIT BACK THE FILES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE TRI BUNAL SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUES BY THEMSELVES, ON MERITS. 3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION IN REMITTING THE MATTERS BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER . NOW THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO RECALL THE SAID DIRECTION AND DEC IDE THE APPEALS BY THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF ON MERITS. THEREFOR E, WHAT IS PRAYED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT TO RECTIFY ANY MI STAKE, BUT TO CHANGE THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIE R ORDER. THIS IS SOMETHING MORE THAN REVIEW OF THE EARLIER ORDER. THE POINT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ANY MISTA KE. THE - - MP 104 TO 112 OF 2012 3 ASSESSEE, IN FACT, WANTS TO CHANGE THE ORDER ITSELF . AS SUCH, THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE LIABLE TO BE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON FRIDAY, THE 24 TH OF AUGUST, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 24 TH AUGUST, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) PETITIONE R (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.