ITO, CHENNAI V. Shri M.Sevugan Chetty, Devakottai

MA 69/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4872 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: P R MURUGA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 69/MDS/2010 (IN ITA NO. 1318/MDS/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD-III(4), CHENNAI. V. SHRI M. SEVUGAN CHETTY, 31, MALLIGAI AVENUE, NERKUNDRAM, CHENNAI-600 107. (PAN : ABGPS4234H) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI B. SRINIVAS RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.R. MURUGAPAN O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE R EVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1318/MDS/2009 DATED 19-10 -2009. 2. SHRI B. SRINIVAS, DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF TH E REVENUE AND SHRI P.R. MURUGAPAN REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. .M.A. NO. 69/MDS/2010 2 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE TRIB UNAL HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF THE A LLOWANCE OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE EXTENT O F ` . 5 LAKHS OUT OF THE EX GRATIA RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS EMPLOYER ICICI BANK LTD. AT THE TIME OF HIS VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT UNDER THE OERS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE CBDT INSTRUCTION AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIG H COURT REFERRED TO IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS IN RELATION TO THE RBI EMPLOYEE S. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THI S TRIBUNAL. 4. IN REPLY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE S UBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDER AND DECIDE THE ISSUE OF GRANTING THE ASSESSEE THE B ENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S. 10(10C) AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION S IN F.NO. 173(1)/32/2009- ITA-1 DATED 08-05-2009. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT EXPRE SSED ANY VIEW IN THIS MATTER. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO POIN T OUT A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN REGARD TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR HAD ALSO BEEN CONSIDE RED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MISTAKE APPARE NT FROM THE RECORD HAVING BEEN POINTED OUT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS A NY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH REQUIRED RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IN .M.A. NO. 69/MDS/2010 3 THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION AS FI LED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13-08-2 010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 13 TH AUGUST, 2010. H. COPY TO: APPLICANT/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE