Nandhi Dall Mills, Salem V. ITO, Salem

MA 183/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0359 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.A. NO. 183/MDS/2010 (IN ITA NO. 672/MDS/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 M/S. NANDHI DALL MILLS, 42, NARASIMHA CHETTY ROAD, SHEVAPET, SALEM-636 002. V. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(2), SALEM. (PAN: AACFN 0131B) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.672/MDS/2009 DATED 24-09 -2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, SR. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE L EARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TH E TRIBUNAL HAD RECORDED AN M.A. NO.183/MDS/2010 2 ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIE D IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TOWARDS DEFICIT STOCK. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THOUGH THE ISSUE HAD BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE C ORRECT ISSUE WAS IN REGARD TO AN ADDITION OF ` 1,98,14,657/- REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STOCK REPORTED TO THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE INCOME TAX DEPA RTMENT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TURNOVER REPORTED TO THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT WAS ONLY ` 7,11,45,205/- WHEREAS THE TURNOVER DISCLOSED FOR TH E INCOME-TAX PURPOSES WAS ` 9,60,14,446/-. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CLAR IFICATION IN REGARD TO THIS ISSUE WAS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN AND THE CORRECT ISSUE WAS TO BE BROUGHT OUT. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WA S NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND WHAT WAS BEING REQUIRED WAS REV IEW OF THE ORDER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT TH E OUTSET IT IS NOTICED FROM THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS IN THE NATURE OF A CLARIFICATION SOU GHT FOR FROM THE TRIBUNAL. CLARIFICATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- ADJUDICATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE RECORDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN SUCH IS THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, OBVIOUSLY, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY PARTICULAR ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT OUT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS IN ITS ORDER CATEGORICALLY DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TO CONSIDER THE RECOR DS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND M.A. NO.183/MDS/2010 3 PASS A FRESH ORDER AS ALSO GIVE A FINDING ON EACH A ND EVERY ISSUE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY IN THE NATURE OF SEEKING CLARIFICATION, THE SA ME IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 04-02-2 011. SD/- SD/- (AABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE