ACIT, CHENNAI V. Shri C.Aryama Sundaram, CHENNAI

MA 190/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7150 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALAMELU LAKSHMINARAYANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M J NICHANE
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.A. NO. 190/MDS/2011 (IN CO NO. 89/MDS/2009 IN ITA NO. 731/MDS/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-III, CHENNAI. V. SHRI C. ARYAMA SUNDARAM, NO. 108, ARMENIAN STREET, CHENNAI-600 001. [PAN: AJYPS1233N] (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SMT. ALAMELU LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : MS. M. J. NICHANE, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 04-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04-11-2011 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE R EVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI C. ARYMA SUNDARAM IN ITA NO. 731/MDS/2009 AND CO. NO. 89/MDS/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 DATED 06-08-2010. M.A. NO. 190/MDS/2011 2 2. MRS. ALAMELU LAKSHMINARAYAN, LEARNED SR. DR REPR ESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND MS. M.J. NICHANE, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL SUFFERS FROM A MISTAKE INSOFAR AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT BY HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 HAD NOT BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF 12 MONTH PERIO D PROVIDED IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2)(II) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSIO N THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS P ASSED AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE REOPENING BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 28-10-2004 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 148 OUGH T TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 143(2) ON 10-03-2006 BEING B EFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE QUA SHED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CO NSIDERED THE PROVISO TO SECTION 148 AND CONSEQUENTLY IT IS NOTICED THAT AN ERROR HA S CREPT INTO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE. IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.731/MDS/2009 & CO NO. 89/MDS/200 9 DATED 06-08-2010 STANDS RECALLED AND THE APPEALS ARE POSTED FOR HEARING ON 30-11-2011. THE DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AND C ONSEQUENTLY NO NOTICE NEEDS M.A. NO. 190/MDS/2011 3 TO BE ISSUED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MISCELLANE OUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 04-11-2 011. SD/- SD/- (AABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 04 TH NOVEMBER, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE