DCIT, Thanjavur V. R.Uma, Mannargudi

MA 25/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2976 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO.25/MDS/2015 (ITA NO.1030/MDS/2014) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, THANJAVUR. V. SMT. R. UMA, NO.16-A, GOPALASAMUDRAM EAST, MANNARGUDI 614 001. PAN : AALPU 9686 R ( PETITIONER) ( RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SH. N. MADHAVAN, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SH. A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE * + ,% / DATE OF HEARING : 22.05.2015 -'( + ,% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.05.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL DATED 12.11.2014. 2 M.P. NO.25/MDS/15 2. SHRI N. MADHAVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER PASSED UNDER SECTION 26 3 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') CONTENDIN G BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNA L, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL PROCEEDED ON THE PRESU MPTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 15.12.2010. THEREFO RE, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADMINIS TRATIVE COMMISSIONER ON 28.03.2014 IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS TRIBUNAL QUASHED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T HE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT AT PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T HERE IS A REFERENCE ABOUT FURNISHING OF DETAILS BY THE ASSESS EE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 7.11.2011. WHEN THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FOR HEARING AND FILED THE DETAILS FOR COMPLETING THE AS SESSMENT ON 7.11.2011, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WAS PASSED ON 15.12.2010. REFERRING TO THE PREAMBLE PART OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT O RDER MENTIONED THE DATE OF ORDER AS 15.12.2010, WHICH IS ONLY A TY POGRAPHICAL ERROR. IN FACT, THE HEARING ITSELF WAS NOT COMPLETED ON 7. 11.2011. 3 M.P. NO.25/MDS/15 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT PASS AN ORD ER ON 15.12.2010. BY PRODUCING THE COPIES OF THE DOCKET ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT AFTER COMPLETING THE HEARING, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ONLY O N 15.12.2011 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT ` 22,95,990/-. THEREFORE, THE DATE OF THE ORDER MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS 15.1 2.2010 IS ONLY A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL NEEDS TO BE RECALLED AND THE APPEAL H AS TO BE HEARD ON MERIT. 3. WE HEARD SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER. THE LD.COUNSEL VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED T HAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED ONLY ON 15.12.2011 AND NOT ON 15.12.2010. THEREFORE, IT IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR . HOWEVER, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAI SED THE ISSUE ON MERIT WITH REGARD TO JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISS IONER FOR REVISING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE DISPOSED OF ON MERIT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE C AREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN FA CT, THE HEARING ITSELF WAS NOT COMPLETED BEFORE 7.11.2011 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD 4 M.P. NO.25/MDS/15 FURNISHED REQUIRED DETAILS ON 7.11.2011. THE DOCKE T ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO SHOWS THAT THE ENQUIR Y WAS GOING ON AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ONLY ON 15.12.2 011. THEREFORE, THE REFERENCE MADE REGARDING THE DATE OF ORDER AS 15.12.2010 IS ONLY A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND IT HAS TO BE READ ONLY AS 15.12.2011. HENCE, WE TAKE THE DATE OF ORDER AS 15.12.2011. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSIONER IS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT BARRED B Y LIMITATION. THE ENTIRE ERROR CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL PROCEEDED ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WAS PASSED ON 15.12.2010. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE H EARD ON MERIT AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. D.R. AND THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 12.11 .2014 IS HEREBY RECALLED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. N O.1030/MDS/2014 IS RESTORED ON THE FILE OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 5. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL ON 1 2.08.2015. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, IT MAY NOT BE NECESSA RY TO ISSUE SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING. IN OTHER WORDS, COPY O F THIS ORDER SHALL BE TREATED AS NOTICE OF HEARING ON 12.08.2015. 5 M.P. NO.25/MDS/15 6. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSI ON OF HEARING ON 22 ND MAY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED, THE 22 ND MAY, 2015. KRI. + 1,23 43(, /COPY TO: 1. PETITIONER 2. RESPONDENT 3. * 5, () /CIT(A) 4. * 5, /CIT 5. 36 1, /DR 6. 7' 8 /GF.