ACIT, CHENNAI V. Dr.M.P.Naresh Kumar, CHENNAI

MA 12/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5341 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH C CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) .. M.P. NO. 12/MDS/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 1797/MDS/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I(2), CHENNAI 600 034. (PETITIONER) V. DR. M.P. NARESH KUMAR, NO.93, POES GARDEN, GOPALAPURAM, CHENNAI 600 034 PAN : AACPN7535M (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE TEXT OF THE PETITION IS AS UNDER:- THE PETITIONER RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT THE HONOUR ABLE ITAT IN THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NOS. 1793 TO 1798/M DS/2009 DATED 17/09/2010 FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2005-06 HAS VIEW ED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS P RODUCED RELEVANT VOUCHERS FOR THE TRAVELING EXPENSES (PAGE 29 PARA 39). HOWEVER, THE TOTAL EXPENSES IS RS.20,50,813/- AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED VOUCHERS FOR ONLY RS.19,82,475/-. HENC E, THERE IS A M.P. NO.12/MDS/11 2 DIFFERENCE OF RS.68,338/- FOR WHICH NO VOUCHERS HAV E BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ITAT HAS ALLOWE D THE EXPENSES BASED ON PRODUCTION OF VOUCHERS IT OUGHT T O HAVE UPHELD THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.68,338/-. 2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AS SUCH, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT CALLING FOR RECTIFICATION U/S.254 (2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT MAY KINDLY RECTIFY ITS ORDER DATED 17/09/2010 REFERRED TO ABOVE AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AND THUS RENDER JUSTICE. 2. IT WAS NOTICED DURING HEARING THAT THE PETITION HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE SAME PERSON WHO HAD SIGNED FORM NO.36 . MOREOVER, THE ISSUE TAKEN UP IN THIS PETITION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO RECTIFICATION OF APPARENT MISTAKE BUT, IT SEEKS TO REVIEW THE FINDIN G REGARDING ALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. AFTER CONSIDERING ENTIRE FA CTS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT MOST OF THE EXPENSES ARE VOUC HED, SO, THE ENTIRE EXPENSES WERE ALLOWED. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CON SCIOUSLY TAKEN A VIEW THAT REMAINING AMOUNT ` 68,338/- WOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY SMALL AMOUNT IN PERCENTAGE O F THE TOTAL EXPENSES. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE AN APPARE NT RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 252 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION. M.P. NO.12/MDS/11 3 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (HARI OM MARATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 18 TH MARCH, 2011. KRI. COPY TO: (1) PETITIONER (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) (4) CIT (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE