S.Periasamy, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 37/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8743 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M ABHISHEK
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Block assessment
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 37/CHNY/2019 [IN I.T(SS).A.NO.07/CHNY/2014] BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD: 1.4.1996 TO 10.7.2002 MR. S. PERIASAMY, 84, BARACCA ROAD, 1 ST STREET, NAMMALWARPET, CHENNAI 600 012. [PAN: AHIPP6991N] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI 600 034. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. ABHISHEK, C.A. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 22.03.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.04.2019 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY MEANS OF PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN I.T.(SS)A. NO. 7/CHNY/2014 DATED 17.07.2018 RELEVANT TO THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD FROM 01.04.1996 TO 10.07.2002 BY STATING THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INFIRM AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS WHOLLY SET-ASIDE U/S 263 AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN M.P. NO. 37 /CHNY/2019 2 OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN ADDITIONS IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER, WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED AND PRAYED FOR RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECTIFICATION. 2. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BY MAKING ENDORSEMENT THAT G. NO. 2 & 3 NOT PRESSED, THE LD. AR DID NOT PRESSED THE GROUNDS VIZ., (2) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT & (3) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ERRED IN NOT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE CONCLUDING THE PROCEEDINGS. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WRITTEN ENDORSEMENT, THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED GROUND NO. 3 AS NOT PRESSED. IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT ONCE THE LD. COUNSEL MADE ENDORSEMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 NOT PRESSED, THERE WAS NO SCOPE OF MAKING ANY SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN ADDITIONS IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER. THUS, THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. MOREOVER, M.P. NO. 37 /CHNY/2019 3 UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL ONLY CAN RECALL ITS ORDER WHERE A PATENT, MANIFEST AND SELF-EVIDENT ERROR WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ELABORATE DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT TO ESTABLISH IT, CAN BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND CAN BE CORRECTED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT DOES NOT CONFER POWER ON THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. UNDER THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR A PARTY TO TAKE FURTHER CHANCE OF RE-ARGUING THE APPEAL ALREADY DECIDED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE BY CONSIDERING THE DULY SIGNED AND WRITTEN ENDORSEMENT MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE M.P. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 02 ND APRIL, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 02.04.2019 VM/- /COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT, 2. / RESPONDENT, 3. ( ) /CIT(A), 4. /CIT, 5. /DR & 6. /GF.