Chennai Port Trust, CHENNAI V. DDIT, CHENNAI

MA 234/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5072 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , & BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.234/MDS/2016 IN I.T.A.NO.495/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12) CHENNAI PORT TRUST, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI-600 001. VS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(EXEMPTIONS)-II, CHENNAI. PAN:AAALC0025B (PETITIONER) ( /RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MR. K.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : MR.SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 30 TH DECEMBER, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 TH DECEMBER, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE PRAYING FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT ON RE CORD BY RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO.495/MDS/2016 DATED 22.07.2016. 2. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED BEF ORE US STATING THAT IN PARA NO.5.4 OF THE ORDER AT PAG E 12 THE BENCH HAD QUOTED INAPPROPRIATE DECISIONS WHILE DECI DING THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREFORE, SUBMI TTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE MODIFIED BY CORREC TING THE MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT ON RECORD. 2 M.P.NO.234 /MDS/2016 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES AND EXAMINING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AND APPLIE D THE RATIO OF THE CASE MENTIONED IN THE ORDER AND DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERI T IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE . ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE DOES NOT SURVIVE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 30 TH DECEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, # /DATE : 30.12.2016 SOMU '( +( /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , () /CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. ( 1 /DR 6. /GF .