DCIT, CHENNAI V. Shri Mahaveer Kumar, CHENNAI

MA 300/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5068 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: R PADMANABHAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , ,, , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 300/MDS/2016 [IN I.T.A. NO. 349/MDS/2015 ] / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 5, CHENNAI - 6 V. SHRI MAHAVEER KUMAR, NO.44/9, E.K. AGRAHARAM, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI 600 006. PAN: AHTPM1979Q ( APPLICANT) ( / RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. PADMANABHAN, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 30.12.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.12.2016 / // / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 05.05.2016. 2 M.A. NO. 300/MDS/2016 2. SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION WAS 2011-12. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE THIRD LINE OF FIRST PAGE OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, WHEREIN, IT W AS MENTIONED AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ON LY 2011-12. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. WE HEARD SHRI R. PADMANABHAN, THE LD. REPRESENTA TIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION WAS 2011-12. THEREFORE, THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL AT LINE NO.3 OF PAGE 1. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND LD. REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. AT PAGE 1 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 05.05.2016, AT LINE NO.3, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS MENTIONED AS 201 0-11. IN FACT, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 2011-12 . TO THAT EXTENT, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIB UNAL WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 3 M.A. NO. 300/MDS/2016 5. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT LINE NO.3 AT PAGE 1 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 05.05.2016 SHALL BE READ AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 INSTEAD OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 6. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IS RECTI FIED AND THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 30 TH DECEMBER, 2016. JR. !' /COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. #$% ( ) /CIT(A) 4. #$% /CIT, 5. /DR 6. &' /GF.