Y.Jagan Mohan, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 162/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5882 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKHAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH A : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] M.P.NO.162/MDS/2010 [IN I.T.A NO. 199/MDS/2009] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 SHRI Y. JAGAN MOHAN T-48, 8 TH STREET ANNA NAGAR CHENNAI 600 040 VS THE ACIT COMPANY CIRCLE IV(3) CHENNAI [PAN - AADPJ3964B] (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKHAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SRINIVAS O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN I.T.A.NO. 199/MDS /2009 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 26.3.2010. 2. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD.AR THAT IN THE CON CLUDING PARA 15, IT HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY STATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED ONLY QUA TWO ITEMS INSTEAD OF PARTLY ALLOWED QUA ONLY ONE ITEM SIN CE THE BENCH HAD CONFIRMED THE APPELLATE ORDER TO THE EXTENT OF FIRST TWO ISSUES AND MP 162/10 :- 2 -: HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED PR OPERLY WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE ON ALLOWABILITY OF EXEMPTION U/S 54EC. 3. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND ARE CON VINCED THAT THIS IS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE COMMITTED, AND ACCORDINGLY, WE MODIFY PARA 15 AND SUBSTITUTE THE WORDS PARTLY AL LOWED ONLY QUA ONE ITEM INSTEAD OF PARTLY ALLOWED ONLY QUA TWO ITEMS . 4. ANOTHER MISTAKE POINTED OUT IS THAT IN PARAGRAPH 13 AT PAGE 11 IN THE LAST LINE IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER QUA THE ABOVE TWO ISSUES IS CONFIRMED . IT IS STATED THAT THE APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT SO, INSTEAD OF APPELLATE ORDER , THE ORDER OF CIT SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH TH E SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR BY SUBSTITUTING THE WORDS ORDER APPEALED AGAINST IN PLACE OF APPELLATE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEO US PETITION IS ALLOWED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10. 12.2010. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10 TH DECEMBER, 10 RD : COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR