ITO NCW 5 (1), CHENNAI V. KANHAYALAL SUNIL KUMAR (HUF), CHENNAI

MA 242/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8310 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R PADMANABHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R ANITA
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: CHENNAI , !' , # $ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R M.P. NO.242/CHNY/2019 ( ./I.T.A. NO.1730/CHNY/2018) / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-5(1), CHENNAI. VS. SHRI KANHAYALAL SUNIL KUMAR (HUF), 39, KALATHI PILLAI STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI 600 079. [PAN : AADHK 8118G ] ( % /APPELLANT) ( &'% /RESPONDENT) % ( ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R. PADMANABHAN, C.A &'% ( ) /RESPONDENT BY : MS. R.ANITA, JCIT * ! ( +# /DATE OF HEARING : 29.11.2019 ,-. ( +# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.01.2020 / / O R D E R PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE REVENUE FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1730/CHNY/2018 DATED 08.05. 2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF ASSES SEES EXEMPTION OF CLAIM U/S. 10(38) OF THE ACT WAS REMITTED BACK TO T HE AO FOR A FRESH EXAMINATION WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. THE REVENUE C ONTENDED THAT ON MP NO.242/CHNY/2019 :- 2 -: SIMILAR FACTS IN THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2019, THE HON'BL E ITAT HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RELYING ON THE HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S. THARAKUMARI IN TCA NO.128 OF 2019 AND CMP NO.3353 OF 2019 DATED 11.02.2019. 2. PER CONTRA, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE AND THE RESPONDENT WERE HEARD AND THE HON'BLE ITAT ON DUE C ONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR A FRESH EXAMINATION WITH DUE DIRECTION. THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE WAS NEITHER PRESENTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRI BUNAL NOR IT WAS ARGUED THEREFORE, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN T HE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ITAT AND HENCE HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL. 3. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FROM VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT AND OTHER HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS, IT IS CLEAR, TH AT THE TRIBUNALS ORDER U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT IS NOT TO REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER, BUT ONLY TO AMEND IT WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD MEANS AN ERROR WHICH STRIKES ONE ON MERE LOOKING AND DOES NOT NEED A LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPTION S. THE ERROR SHOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY EXTRANEOUS MATTER TO SHOW ITS INCOR RECTNESS. IF THE VIEW ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS O NE OF POSSIBLE VIEWS, MP NO.242/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: THE CASE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE COVERED BY AN ERROR A PPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. SINCE, THE REVENUE IS NOT ABLE TO E XACTLY POINT OUT THE MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD ITS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE DAY OF 10 TH JANUARY, 2020 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) # /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0' /DATED: 10 TH JANUARY, 2020 . EDN, SR. P.S / ( &+12 32.+ /COPY TO: 1. % /APPELLANT 2. &'% /RESPONDENT 3. * 4+ ( )/CIT(A) 4. * 4+ /CIT 5. 2!56 &+ /DR 6. 6 7 /GF