ITO, CHENNAI V. Smt. R.Chandrakala, CHENNAI

MA 111/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5174 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI (BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) M.A. NO. 111/MDS/2010 (IN I.T.A. NO. 1101/MDS/09) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD I(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (APPLICANT) V. SMT. R. CHANDRAKALA, NO. 30/11, RISHAB HOUSE, GOVINDU STREET, CHENNAI - 600 017. PAN : AADPR5260Q (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S. SRIDHAR O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2009. 2. IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT IN PARA 5 AT PAGE NO.5 IN WHICH DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES SUBMISSIONS HAD BEEN RECORDED, ONE SENTENCE WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD.DRS M.A. NO.111/MDS/10 2 PROPOSITION IS INCORPORATED WHICH IS CONTRADICTORY TO THE FINAL FINDING BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE TRIBUNAL ORDE R. IN FACT, THIS IS SIMPLY A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE AS THE WORD NOT AFTER THE WORD ARE WAS INADVERTENTLY NOT TYPED. WHEN THE ENTIRE ORDER IS READ HARMONIOUSLY THIS BECOMES SIMPLY CLEAR. THEREFORE, WE RECTIFY THIS MISTAKE BY SUBSTITUTING THE FOLLOWING PARA:- WE ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD.DRS PROPOSITI ON. 4. IN SO FAR AS THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT( APPEALS)-II TO THE A.O. FOR THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2004- 05 TO 2006-07, THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CORRE CT BECAUSE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NO SUCH VESTED POWER TO DIRECT THE A.O. TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE REOPENED WHEN A.O. FORMS HIS OPINION ON THE BASIS OF ANY MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS ALSO A MATERIAL WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. THEREFORE, THIS IS ALSO NOT AN ERROR I N THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITH THE ABOVE AMENDMENTS . M.A. NO.111/MDS/10 3 THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) (HARI OM MARAT HA) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI. DATED THE 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2010. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPLICANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE