ITO, Tiruvannamalai V. Smt. Punitha Balakrishnan, Tiruvannamalai

MA 275/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5677 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH TRIPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: SRINIRANJANI
• Keywords: Tax effect

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.275/MDS/2016 (IN I.T.A. NO.991/MDS/2014) ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, TIRUVANNAMALAI. V. SMT. PUNITHA BALAKRISHNAN, NO.203, ANNA SALAI, TIRUVANNAMALAI. PAN : AOYPB 2411 C (+,( /PETITIONER) (+-,./ RESPONDENT) +,( 0 1 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI ASHISH TRIPATHY, JCIT +-,. 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : MS. SRINIRANJANI, ADVOCATE 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 02.06.2017 4') 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.06.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION PRAYING FOR RECALL OF ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 24.03.2016 ON THE GROUND THAT TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS MO RE THAN ` 10 LAKHS. 2. WHEN THE PETITION WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN ` 10 LAKHS, HOWEVER, 2 M.P. NO.275/MDS/16 IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE TAX EFFECT WAS MORE THAN ` 10 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THIS TRIBUNAL DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPEAR BEFORE THI S TRIBUNAL ON 24.03.2017. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 15.05.2017 A ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO APPEAR ON THAT DA Y BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN FACT, APPEARED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 15.05.2017 AND CLARIFIED THAT HE PUT UP AN OFFICIAL NOTE BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER THAT THE TAX EFFE CT IS LESS THAN ` 10 LAKHS, THEREFORE, NO PETITION NEEDS TO BE FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (HEADQUA RTERS) FILED ANOTHER NOTE BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER APPROVED THE NOTE OF THE INCOME TAX OF FICER (HEADQUARTERS) TO FILE A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BEF ORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WAS FILED BE FORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 3. WE CALLED FOR THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX WHEREIN THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED. THE LD. D.R. HAS PRODUCED THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON 02.06.2017 WHICH WAS VERIFIED AND RETURNED TO THE L D. D.R. ON THE SAME DAY. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER HAS NOTED THA T EVEN THOUGH HE WAS SATISFIED THAT TAX EFFECT WAS LESS THAN ` 10 LAKHS, IN VIEW OF THE NOTE PUT UP BY THE ITO (HQRS), HE APPROVED THE FILING OF 3 M.P. NO.275/MDS/16 MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THERE FORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WAS FILED BEFORE TH IS TRIBUNAL IN A ROUTINE MANNER WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERIT. 4. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT FILING OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION MAY BE EASY FOR THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OR ANY OTHER INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES BUT IT IS NOT SO EASY FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE MOMENT THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED FROM THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ENGAGE A COUNSEL AND HE HAS TO DEFEND THE CASE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THE COST OF LITIGATION IN THIS COUNTRY HAS INCREASED MANIFOLD IN THE RECENT YEARS. THE ASSESS EE HAS TO ENGAGE A COUNSEL BY PAYING HUGE AMOUNT AS FEES BESI DES WASTING HIS TIME FOR BRIEFING THE COUNSEL. THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FILING OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION C OULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IN THIS CASE, IF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER WAS LITTLE MORE CAREFUL WHILE APPROVING THE FILING OF MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS CONFIDENT THAT THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER WOULD TAKE LITTLE MORE CARE IN FUTURE WHILE APPROVING MISCELLANEOUS PETITION TO BE FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL INSTEAD OF GIVING APPROVAL IN A ROUTINE MANNER. 5. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 4 M.P. NO.275/MDS/16 ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 16 TH JUNE, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 16 TH JUNE, 2017. KRI. 0 +37' 8')3 /COPY TO: 1. +,( / PETITIONER 2. +-,. /RESPONDENT 3. 2 93 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 93 /CIT 5. ': +3 /DR 6. ( ; /GF.