ITO NCW 5(3), CHENNAI V. MANKANWAR, CHENNAI

MA 244/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8309 (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.244/CHNY/2019 ( ./I.T.A. NO.3074/CHNY/2018) / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-5(3), CHENNAI. VS. SMT. MANKANWAR, NO.18, ELEPHANT GATE STREET, SOWCARPET CHENNAI. [PAN : ABRPM 0693F ] ( % /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.3074/CHNY/2018 DATED 08.05. 2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF ASSES SEES EXEMPTION CLAIM U/S. 10(38) OF THE ACT WAS REMITTED BACK TO T HE AO FOR A FRESH EXAMINATION WITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS. THE REVENUE CO NTENDED THAT ON MP NO.244/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 ITAT ON DUE CONSIDERA TION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE O F AO FOR A FRESH EXAMINATION WITH A DUE DIRECTION. THE CASE LAW REL IED ON BY THE REVENUE WAS NEITHER PRESENTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL NO R IT WAS ARGUED THEREFORE, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDE R OF THE HON'BLE ITAT AND HENCE HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARITIES WERE CONSIDERED AND A DUE ORDE R HAS BEEN PASSED. FROM VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT , HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS, IT IS CLEAR, THAT THE T RIBUNALS 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 RECOR D. AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD MEANS AN ERROR WHICH STRIKES ONE ON M ERE LOOKING AND DOES NOT NEED A LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPTIONS. THE ERROR SH OULD NOT REQUIRE ANY MP NO.244/CHNY/2019 :- 3 -: EXTRANEOUS MATTER TO SHOW ITS INCORRECTNESS. IF TH E VIEW ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS ONE OF POSSIBLE V IEWS, THE CASE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE COVERED BY AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE F ACE OF THE RECORD. SINCE, THE REVENUE IS NOT ABLE TO EXACTLY POINT OUT THE MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, ITS 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