M.Perarasu, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 48/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4150 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MATHIVANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T T DURAIRAJ KANDIAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !', $ '% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER && / M.P. NO.48/CHNY/2019 (IN I.T.A. NO.1215/CHNY/2015) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI M. PERARASU, NO.25, 4 TH STREET, SHALIMAR GARDEN, INJAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 115. PAN : AMNPP 4778 P V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 20(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI T.T. DURAIRAJ KANDIAR, FCA *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. MATHIVANAN, JCIT 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 10.05.2019 34( / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.05.2019 / 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 ARE PRIMA FACIE ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 19.12.2018. 2. SHRI T.T. DURAIRAJ KANDIAR, THE LD. REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT AT PAGE 4, PARA 8, THIS TR IBUNAL ALLOWED 2 M .P. NO.48/CHNY/19 THE EXPENDITURE OF 40,000/- TOWARDS EDITING CHARGES. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THIS TRIBUNAL INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THIS NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. SIMILARLY AT PAGE 5, PARA 10, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, WHILE ALLOWING THE ENTERTAINMENT EX PENDITURE, THIS TRIBUNAL INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED THAT THIS TRIBUN AL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITY. THIS ALSO NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. REFERRING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED IN THE APPEAL, MORE PARTICULARLY GROUND NO.4, THE LD. REPR ESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF PRODUCT ION EXPENSES OF 26,75,000/- WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL WHI LE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, N ON-DISPOSAL OF SPECIFIC GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ERROR WIT HIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT 'THE ACT'), THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE DISPOSED OF. 3. WE HEARD SHRI M. MATHIVANAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., GR OUND NO.4 WITH REGARD TO PRODUCTION EXPENSES OF 26,75,000/- WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THIS TRIBUNAL INADVERTENTLY WHILE DISPOSING OF T HE APPEAL. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND NEEDS TO BE DISPOSED OF. SI MILARLY, 3 M .P. NO.48/CHNY/19 ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE ARE ERRORS IN PARA 8 AND PARA 10 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. INADVERTENTLY, THIS TRIBUNAL M ENTIONED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, BOTH THE GROUNDS WERE A LLOWED. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE ARE ERR ORS IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R. AS RIGHTLY SUBMI TTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN THE THIRD LINE OF PARA 8 AT PAGE 4 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THIS TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. THIS OBSERVATION IS INADVERTENTL Y MADE. ACCORDINGLY, THE FOLLOWING LINE AT PARA 8 IS DELETE D:- THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY . INSTEAD THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED: THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY PARA 8 IS RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 4 M .P. NO.48/CHNY/19 5. NOW COMING TO PAGE 5, ON 8 TH AND 9 TH LINE OF PARA 10, THIS TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY. IT IS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE. HENCE, THE SAME IS D ELETED. INSTEAD, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED:- THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY THE ERROR AT PARA 10 IS RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 6. NOW COMING TO GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL WITH REG ARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF PRODUCTION EXPENSES OF 26,75,000/-. ADMITTEDLY, THIS GROUND WAS NOT DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSE E, NON-DISPOSAL OF SPECIFIC GROUND RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS AN ERROR WITHIN THE MEANING OF 254(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT NE EDS TO BE DISPOSED OF. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL IS REOPENED O NLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL OF GROUND NO.4. THE REGISTRY I S DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL FOR DISPOSAL OF GROUND NO.4 ALONE ON 17. 06.2019. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE PRESENCE O F BOTH THE PARTIES, IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY FOR THE REGISTRY T O ISSUE A SEPARATE 5 M .P. NO.48/CHNY/19 NOTICE OF HEARING. IN OTHER WORDS, A COPY OF THIS ORDER SHALL BE TREATED AS NOTICE OF HEARING FOR 17.06.2019. 7. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSI ON OF HEARING ON 10 TH MAY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( ... ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANE SAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 10 TH MAY, 2019. KRI. / *27& 8&(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 92 /CIT 5. &: *2 /DR 6. ' ; /GF.