IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO.253(MDS)/2012 (IN MP NO. 218/MDS/2011 IN ITA NO.1335/MDS/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD I(3), ERODE. VS. SHRI A. CHARLES, PROP: M/S. SONY LEATHERS, NO.33-B-1, ANNA STREET, VEERAPPANCHATRAM, ERODE 638 004. PAN AELPC8371F (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI S. DAS GU PTA, IRS, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH MARCH, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 8 TH MARCH, 2013 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS A RECTIFICATION PETITION FILED BY THE REV ENUE. THIS PETITION IS FILED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 6.1.2012 IN M.P.NO.218/MDS/2011. THE REVENUE IS - - MP 253/2012 2 AGGRIEVED AND, THEREFORE, THE RECTIFICATION PETITIO N BEFORE US STATING THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 6 .1.2012 RECALLING ITS EARLIER ORDER DATED 10.10.2011, IS NO T A SPEAKING ORDER AND NO REASON HAS BEEN STATED BY THE TRIBUNA L FOR THE SAME. 2. IN FACT, THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1335/MDS/2011 WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL WAS FIRST HEARD BY THE TRI BUNAL ON 10.10.2011, EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDE R WAS PASSED ON THE SAME DAY, SETTING ASIDING THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AND REMITTING B ACK THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERA TION AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THEREAFTER, THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE FILED A RECTIFICATION PETIT ION IN MP NO.218/MDS/2011, STATING THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE WAS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND, THERE FORE, THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE SAID M.P. WAS DISPOSED OFF ON 6.1.2012 BY RECALLING THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2011 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSING THE SAME AF TER HEARING BOTH SIDES. - - MP 253/2012 3 3. IT IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE RECTIFICATION, RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.10.2011, THAT THE RE VENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND FILED THE PRESENT RECTIFICATION PETIT ION. 4. AS FEARED BY THE REVENUE, THERE WAS NO OTHER REA SON TO JUSTIFY THE RECALL OF THE ORDER THAN THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS ORIGINALLY DISPOSED OFF, EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE TRIBUNAL REGULATIONS, IF AN ASSESSEE, NOT HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL, MOVES PETITION TO RECALL TH E SAID ORDER FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD , THE TRIBUNAL IS BOUND TO RECALL THE ORDER AND DISPOSE OFF THE MA TTER AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES. THESE ARE ALL SETTLED MATT ERS AND THAT IS WHY THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ELABORATED THE REASON WHY ITS ORDER DATED 10.10.2011 WAS RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AFTER RECALLING, THE SAID APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1335 /MDS/2011 WAS DISPOSED OFF BY THE TRIBUNAL THROUGH ITS ORDER DATED 26.7.2012 AT CHENNAI. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WA S DISMISSED. THAT ORDER WAS PASSED BY ANOTHER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL THROUGH ITS ORDER DATED 26.7.2012 HELD THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS - - MP 253/2012 4 LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. IN THAT WAY, ALL THE PROCE EDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAVE COME TO A LOGICAL END. 6. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THER E IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNA L ON 6.1.2012. THIS PETITION IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON FRIDAY, THE 8 TH OF MARCH, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED, THE 8 TH MARCH, 2013. MPO* COPY TO: 1. PETITIONER 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GF.