DCIT, CHENNAI V. Sri N.Renganathan, Trichy

MA 285/CHNY/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5171 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS SRI V D GOPAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Retrospective amendment; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: D- BENCH:CHENN AI (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA NO.285/MDS/2009 IN IT(SS)A NO. 67/ MDS/2002 BLOCK ASST. PERIOD 1989-90 TO 1999-2000 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIR.I(3), CHENNAI AXSZ (NOW: THE ITO,WARD I(2), TIRUCHIRAPALLI) VS SHRI N.RANGANATHAN, 4-A CAUVERY RD., DEVADHANAM, TIRUCHIRAPALLI 620002 (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: RESPONDENT BY: SRI B.SRINIVAS SRI V.D.GOPAL ORDER PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE ITS GRIEVANCE IS THAT THETRIBUNAL FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IN THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 158BB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT F OR SHORT). SAID GRIEVANCE APPEARS AT PARA-8 OF THE MISC. APPLICATIO N, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: MP 285/MDS/09 2 THE HONOURAABLE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF TH E RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IN THE EXPLANATION TO SEC.158BB ;WHEREBY THE WORDS CHAPTER-IV WERE SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORDS THIS AC T, WHICH MEANT THAT TOTAL INCOME UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B WAS TP NE CP,[ITED WOTJ EFFECT FRP, 1-7-1995 IN ACCORDANCE WIOTH THE P ROVISIONS OF THEACT WHICH ALSO INCLUDES DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SE C.68,69,69B AND 69C. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL ALSO FAILED TO TAKE NOTE THAT SEC. 158BH WHICH IS ON STATUTE WITH EFFECT FROM 1-7-1995 CLEARLY STATE THAT SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN CHAPTER XIV-B. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE APPLIED THE DEEMING PROVISIO NS OF SEC.69 TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND COANFIRMED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE LD. COUNSELS ARGUED THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS VEH EMENTLY. 3. AS IS CLEAR FROM THE GROUND ITSELF, THE GRIE VANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE FINDING REGARDING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T AS NOT ASSESSABLE IN A BLOCK ASSESSMENT, SINCE THE RELEVANT CREDIT APPEA RED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, FOR WHICH RETURN HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED, WAS A MISTAKE. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, THIS TRIBUNAL DI D NOT APPLY THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 158BB OF THE ACT PROPERLY. SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT PERMITS ONLY RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE WHICH IS GLARING OR APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO MAKE A RE VIEW OF ITS ORDER. ONCE IT HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING THAT A PARTICULAR SUM IS NOT ASSESSABLE SINCE IT APPEARED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, TO RELOOK SUCH FINDING BASED ON VARIOUS INTERPRATIONS THAT COULD B E GIVEN TO EXPLANATION TO SEC. 158BB OF THE ACT, WOULD BE NOTH ING BUT A REVIEW. MP 285/MDS/09 3 WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL, WHICH IS AMENABLE TO A RECTIFICATORY PROCEEDING. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISC. PETITION FILED BY REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26-11- 2010. SD/- SD/- ( HARI OM MARATHA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI: 2ND DECEMBER, 2010 NBR CC: ASSESSEE/ ASSESSING OFFICER/ CIT(A)/ CIT/ D .R/ GUARD FILE.