Aditya Birla Money Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 28/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5853 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND DEVKUMAR

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.28/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.270/MDS/2016) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S ADITYA BIRLA MONEY LIMITED, NO.55, ALI TOWERS, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 006. PAN : AAACA 7472 K V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI. (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI ANANDDEVKUMAR, CA *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 27.10.2017 3'( / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.11.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 05.08.2016. 2. SHRI ANANDDEVKUMAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR T HE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AT PARA 5 OF ITS 2 M.P. NO.28/MDS/17 ORDER THAT THE APPEAL WAS PENDING AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 3-04 AND 2004-05 BEFORE THE MADRAS HIGH COURT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THIS REFERENCE ABOUT THE PENDENCY O F THE APPEAL IS NOT CORRECT. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, WHEN THE D EPARTMENT IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT 2.2 SPECIFICALLY REFERS THAT T HE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05, WHAT IS THE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL? THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CLARIFY THE FACTS. 3. WE HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. WHEN THE DEPARTMENT SPECIFICA LLY RAISED AN ISSUE AT GROUND NO.2.2 THAT THEY HAVE GONE ON APPEA L AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, A REFERENCE ABOUT THAT IN TH E ORDER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE AN ERROR WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC TION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ENTERTAIN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION. ACCORDINGLY, T HE SAME IS DISMISSED AS DEVOID OF MERIT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 3 M.P. NO.28/MDS/17 ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. KRI. / *26& 7&(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 82 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 82 /CIT 5. &9 *2 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.