DCIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. Aircel Cellular Limited, CHENNAI

MA 44/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6346 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH A : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] M.P.NO.44/MDS/2011 [IN M.P.NO.161/MDS/2010 I.T.A NO. 1415/MDS/2007] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 THE DY. CIT COMPANY CIRCLE I(1) CHENNAI VS M/S AIRCEL CELLULAR LTD 5 TH FLOOR, SPENCER PLAZA 769, ANNASALAI CHENNAI 600 002 [PAN AAACA5136R] (PETITIONER) (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI K.E.B RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.G.MUTHUKUMARAN FOR DR. ANITA SUMANTH O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE REVENUE HAS POINTED OUT THAT IN PARA 2 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 1 .10.2010 IN M.P.NO.161/MDS/2010 CIT(A) HAS BEEN MENTIONED INS TEAD OF CIT AND SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE SAME. 2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 1. 10.2010 AND FIND THAT THERE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH IS TO BE MP 44/2011 :- 2 -: RECTIFIED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, MODIFY THE TRIBUNAL O RDER AND IN PARA 2, THE WORD CIT(A) MAY BE READ AS CIT . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.5 .2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23RD MAY, 2011 RD : COPY TO: 1. PETITIONER 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR