M/s Dishnet Wireless Ltd., CHENNAI V. Addl.CIT, CHENNAI

MA 158/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5180 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR ANITA SUMANTH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH C : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] M.A.NO. 158/MDS/2010 [ARISING OUT OF I .T.A NO.878/MDS/2009 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 M/S DISHNET WIRELESS LTD FIFTH FLOOR, SPENCER PLAZA 769 ANNA SALAI CHENNAI 600 002 VS THE ADDL. CIT COMPANY RANGE I CHENNAI (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : DR. ANITA SUMANTH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEE N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) OF THE I.T.ACT IN RELATION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 7.5.2010 IN I.T.A.NO. 878/MDS/2009, RELEVANT TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. THROUGH THIS PETITION IT HAS BEEN CANVASSED T HAT A SPECIFIC ISSUE RAISED WITH REGARD TO PREJUDICE, WHICH, ACCOR DING TO THE ASSESSEE, HAS NOT BEEN CAUSED TO REVENUE AND THE SA ME REMAINED UNADJUDICATED. ACCORDING TO THE PETITIONER, THIS I SSUE WAS RAISED VIDE GROUND NOS.4 & 5 WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY A DJUDICATED UPON. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR HAS DISPUTED THIS CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING THAT WHEN THE BENCH HAS UPHELD THE VA LIDITY OF M.A 158/2010 :- 2 -: ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION, THE ISSUE OF PREJUDICE HAVING BEEN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE STANDS DECIDED AS IT IS COMPRISED OF TWIN CONDITIONS NAMELY THE ORDER SHOULD BE ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. WHEN BOTH THESE CONDITIO NS ARE FOUND TO CO- EXIST, THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND N OS. 4 & 5 WAS DISMISSED. SO, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, GROUND NOS . 4 & 5 STAND VERY MUCH ADJUDICATED UPON AND IN FACT, DID NOT REMAIN U NDECIDED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.10. 2010. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH OCTOBER,2010 RD COPY TO: APPLICANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR