Photon Infotech Private Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 144/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0976 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !'# ! , $ !% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER && / M.P. NOS.143 & 144/CHNY/2018 (IN I.T.A. NOS.137 & 138/CHNY/2015) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11 M/S PHOTON INFOTECH PVT. LTD., NO.7, 7 TH CROSS STREET, SHASTRI NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI - 600 020. PAN : AABCP 9405 E V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE V(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SH. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVO CATE *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 07.09.2018 3'( / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.09.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE PREAMBLE OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 01 .04.2016. 2. SH. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED IN T HIS APPEAL ARE 2 M.P. NOS.143 & 144/CHNY/18 2009-10 AND 2010-11. HOWEVER, IT WAS WRONGLY MENTI ONED AS IF IT WAS 2009-10 AND 2011-12. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO T HE LD. COUNSEL, IT NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. WE HEARD SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HE PETITION WAS FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE RECTIFIED AT THIS STAGE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS DATED 01.04.2016. THE AMENDMENT IN SECTIO N 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') LIMITING THE PERIOD TO SIX MONTHS CAME INTO FORCE FROM 01.06.2016. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PETITION IS MAIN TAINABLE. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL, THE LIMITATION TO FILE THE PETITION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 2 54(2) OF THE ACT WAS FOUR YEARS. THIS PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS WAS RESTRICT ED TO SIX MONTHS WITH EFFECT FROM 01.106.2016. THEREFORE, THE ASSES SEE HAS EVERY RIGHT TO FILE THE PETITION. MOREOVER, IT IS A TYPO GRAPHICAL ERROR WHICH CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. NO ONE CAN GA IN ANY ADVANTAGE BY ALLOWING THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR TO CONTINUE. T HEREFORE, IT NEEDS 3 M.P. NOS.143 & 144/CHNY/18 TO BE RECTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE PREAMBLE OF TH E ORDER, AFTER THE I.T.A. NO., THE FOLLOWING IS DELETED: ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 INSTEAD THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED:- ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 5. AFTER RECTIFICATION, PREAMBLE OF THE ORDER, NEXT TO I.T.A. NO., SHALL BE READ AS FOLLOWS:- ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 & 2010-11 THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. THE OTHER PART OF THE ORDER SHALL REMAIN AS SUCH. 6. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSI ON OF HEARING ON 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. KRI. 4 M.P. NOS.143 & 144/CHNY/18 / *26& 7&(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 82 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 82 /CIT 5. &9 *2 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.