Shri Philip Sakthivel, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 140/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6870 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGIRI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.P. NO. 140/MDS/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 71/MDS/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 SHRI PHILIP SAKTHIVEL, 1229, 20 TH MAIN ROAD, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 040. PAN: AAIPS2091P (PETITIONER) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE XIV(3), CHENNAI 600 034. (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N. B ETGIRI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 26.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION RUNNING INTO T EN PAGES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE PLEADS FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDE R OF THIS TRIBUNAL. A READING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WOULD SHOW TH AT RECALL HAS BEEN PLEADED ON ACCOUNT OF TWO REASONS, NAMELY, WRONG AP PRECIATION OF DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. RAJESH JHAVERI M.P. NO.140/MDS/11 2 STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. (291 ITR 500) (SC) AND NON-CO NSIDERATION OF A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S NAFED. 2. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. THOUGH A REQUEST WAS PLACED BY A MEMBER OF THE BAR THAT THE MATTER MIGHT BE HEARD AFTER TWO WE EKS, THE ADVOCATE WHO SOUGHT SUCH ADJOURNMENT WAS NOT HAVING ANY AUTH ORIZATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISP OSE OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON MERITS. 3. AFTER A LABORIOUS READING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION WE FIND IT TO BE MISCONCEIVED, ARGUMENTATIVE AND QUESTIONS THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE IT. THIS TRIBUNAL HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ORIGINAL R ETURN HAVING BEEN PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961 (IN SHORT THE ACT), THE REOPENING WAS JUSTIFIED BASED ON TH E REASONS CITED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO M AKE OUT A DIFFERENT CASE AND SHOW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT APPRECIATED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JHAVERI (S UPRA) CORRECTLY. 4. VIS--VIS SECOND PLEADING THAT THE CERTIFICATE I SSUED BY M/S NAFED WAS NOT CONSIDERED, THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY M.P. NO.140/MDS/11 3 REFERRED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 11 OF THE ORDER. ON THE FACE OF THE VARIOUS OTHER EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SPELLED OUT AT PARA 11 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THIS CERTIFICATE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE OF ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPECTS, THE TRIBUNAL D ISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOW SEEKING IS A REVIEW IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION PETITION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT HAVING ANY POWER TO MAKE A REVIEW OF ITS ORDER UNDER SECTION 2 54(2) OF THE ACT. NO GLARING OR APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD WARRANTING RECTIFICATION AS PRESCRIBED UNDER LAW HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT. WE DO N OT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MUCH LESS ANY ERROR WA RRANTING RECTIFICATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2011. KRI. COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./GUA RD FILE