ITO, CHENNAI V. Dr. Manu Jacob Abraham, CHENNAI

MA 274/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5361 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR ADD L
• Assessee Lawyers: M P SENTHIL KUMAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !'# ! ,% !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '' / M.P. NO.274/MDS/2016 (IN I.T.A. NO.1132/MDS/2013 AND M.P. NO.2/MDS/2016) ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD XIII(1) (PRESENTLY THE JURISDICTION IS WITH NON- CORPORATE CIRCLE -3, CHENNAI-34) V. DR. MANU JACOB ABRAHAM, L/R OF (LATE) T.C. ABRAHAM, NO.1A, ROSSY IN PLACE, NO.5, GURUSWAMY ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI - 600 031. PAN : AAAPA 8466 C (+,( /PETITIONER) (+-,./ RESPONDENT) +,( 0 1 /PETITIONER BY : SH.R.CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, A DDL.CIT +-,. 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. M.P. SENTHIL KUMAR, ADVOCATE 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 03.03.2017 4') 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.03.2017 / 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 CONFUSION IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL REGARDING THE AUTHORITY TO WHOM THE MATTER IS REMIT TED BACK. 2 M.P. NO.274/MDS/16 2. SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT VIDE ITATS ORDER IN I.T.A. NO.1132/MDS/2013 DATED 18.09.2015, THE MATTER WAS R EMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). WHEREAS IN THE O RDER IN M.P. NO.2/MDS/2016, THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THERE IS A CONFUSION WHICH NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI M.P. SENTHIL KUMAR, THE LD .COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CONFUSION IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. EVEN THOUGH INITIALLY THE ORDER WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER, ON THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION. WHE N THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL WAS RECTIFIED, THE SAME IS MERGE D WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER, THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED BACK ONLY TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT TO THE CIT(AP PEALS). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. VIDE THE ORDER IN I.T.A. NO.1132/MDS/2013, THE ISSUE WAS REMITTED BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE FILED MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IN M.P. NO.2/MDS/2016. THIS TRIBUNAL BY AN ORDER DATE D 05.05.2016, 3 M.P. NO.274/MDS/16 RECTIFIED THE ORIGINAL ORDER AND THE MATTER WAS REM ITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE ORDER WAS RECTIFIED SUBSEQUENTLY AND THE MATTER WAS REMITTED BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE RECTIFIED ORDER MERGED WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER. TH EREFORE, FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, IT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED THAT THE MATTER WAS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO CONFUSION AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTA TIVE FOR THE REVENUE. IT IS MADE VERY CLEAR THAT ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO.1132/MDS/ 2013 ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETIT ION FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 17 TH MARCH, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 17 TH MARCH, 2017. KRI. 4 M.P. NO.274/MDS/16 0 +37' 8')3 /COPY TO: 1. +,( / PETITIONER 2. +-,. /RESPONDENT 3. 2 93 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 93 /CIT 5. ': +3 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.