ITO, CHENNAI V. Smt Kalavathy Muthayya, CHENNAI

MA 227/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7502 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K P GOPAKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O. K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.A. NO. 227/MDS/2011 (IN ITA NO. 424/MDS/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD-II(2), CHENNAI. V. SMT. KALAVATHY MUTHAYYA, 72, 2 ND MAIN ROAD, VGP LAYOUT, PALAVAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 041. [PAN:AAAPM5194M] (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI K.P. GOPAKUMAR, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 20-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-01-2012 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 THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO . 424/MDS/2010 DATED 4-5-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. SHRI K.P. GOPAKUMAR, DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE. M..A. NO. 227/MDS/2011 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL SUFFERED FROM A MISTAKE INSOFAR AS THE RETURN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE WAS ON 15-03-2007 AND CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR THE ISSUANC E OF A NOTICE U/S 142(1). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 19-06- 2008 WAS ISSUED FOR CALLING FOR DETAILS. IT WAS TH E SUBMISSION THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED WAS A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT) AND NOT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)(I). I T WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS LIABLE T O BE RECALLED AND THE MISTAKE RECTIFIED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED WAS A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1). THERE WA S NO MENTION IN THE NOTICE THAT IT IS A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)(II). IT WAS TH E FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUE HAD BEEN CONSIDERED IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL IN IT S ORDER AND RE-CONSIDERING THE DETAILS WOULD AMOUNT TO A REVIEW WHICH WAS NOT PERM ISSIBLE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS EXPLAINING THE PROVISIONS AS HE WANTS THE TRIBUNAL TO UNDERSTAND. ADMITTEDLY, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) IS NOT DISPUTED. NOW TO SAY THAT THE NO TICE WAS A NOTICE U/S 142(1)(II) AND NOT A NOTICE U/S 142(1)(I) IS IN FACT ASKING FO R THE TRIBUNAL TO RECONSIDER THE WHOLE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL. IN ANY CASE, THAT WAS N OT THE SUBMISSION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN THE APPEAL WAS HEARD. FURTHER THE SU BMISSION OF THE ASSESSING M..A. NO. 227/MDS/2011 3 OFFICER IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION CLEARLY IS A PRAYER FOR NOT A RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE BUT A REVIEW OF THE ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES , THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20-01-2 012. SD/- SD/- (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) (GEORGE MATHAN) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 20 TH JANUARY, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE