ITO, CHENNAI V. Smt. C.Narayanamma, CHENNAI

MA 224/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7495 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NOS.222 TO 224/MDS/2011 (IN I.T.A.NOS. 1085 TO 1087/MDS/2007) (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1999-2000, 2000-01 & 2002-03) THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, MEDIA WARD-II, CHENNAI. VS. SMT. C. NARAYANAMMA, OLD NO.9/1, NEW NO.19, MYLAI RANGANATHAN STREET, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI600 017. PAN AAFPN 0871 K (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI K.E.B.RENGARAJAN, JUN IOR STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNAN, CA DATE OF HEARING : 6 TH JANUARY, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6 TH JANUARY, 2012 O R D E R PER DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS, SEEKING RECTIFICATIO N OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16 TH MAY, 2008 PASSED IN MA 222 TO 224/11 :- 2 -: I.T.A. NOS.1085, 1086 & 1087/MDS/2007, ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE SAID COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE TR IBUNAL, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WERE DELE TED AND THE ADDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALONE WAS SUSTAINED ON THE GROUND THAT THOSE ITEMS ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WER E NOT COVERED BY THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SEC.148 PROPOSING INCOM E ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED ON RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF SUN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT. LTD. (198 ITR 29 7) TO COME TO ITS CONCLUSION, AS THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE S UPREME COURT IN THAT CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. 2. THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THESE P ETITIONS DO REALLY CALL FOR EXAMINING THE LEGAL ISSUES CONSIDER ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS COMMON ORDER WHICH IS NOT OF COURSE , IN THE NATURE OF A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IN FACT, TH E PETITIONS ARE FOR REVIEWING THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHIC H ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. MA 222 TO 224/11 :- 3 -: 3. THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE ACCORDINGLY, D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING, ON FRIDAY, THE 6 TH OF JANUARY, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 6 TH JANUARY, 2012 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR