ITO, Bhubaneswar V. Smt Satarupa Nayak, Bhubaneswar

MA 83/CTK/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4710 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S MANDAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K JENA

Judgement Text

( WORD TO PDF CONVERTER - UNREGISTERED ) HTTP://WWW.WORD-TO-PDF-CONVERTER.NET , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK () BEFOR E . . , HONBLE SHRI D.K.TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. / AND . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . M.P. NO.83/CTK/2009 ( /ARISING OUT OF I.TA.NO .503/CTK/2005) / ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 THE I.T.O. WARD 2(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VANI VIHAR, BHUBANESWAR ( / APPELLANT ) - - - VERSUS -. SMT. SATARUPA NAYAK, MADHAV VIHAR APARTMENT, BOMIKHAL, BHUBANESWAR (/ RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT: / SHRI A.S.MANDAL / FOR THE RESPONDENT : / SHRI S.K.JENA / ORDER . . , SHRI D.K.TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER. BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE REVENUE HAS REQUESTED TO RECALL/AMEND OUR ORDER DATED 8.9.2006 ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE SAID ORDER, SOME MISTAKES HAVE BEEN CREPT IN, WHICH REQUIRES RECTIFICATION. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, IT IS STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHANTILATA MOHANTY, WHICH IS NOT SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE, IN THE CASE OF SHANTILATA MOHANTY, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF PROPERTY WHICH COMPRISED A STRUCTURE ON THE LAND TRANSFERRED BY HER, HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO STRUCTURE ON THE LAND BUT ONLY A PIECE OF LAND. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. ( WORD TO PDF CONVERTER - UNREGISTERED ) HTTP://WWW.WORD-TO-PDF-CONVERTER.NET THE POINT RAISED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION VIRTUALLY SEEKS A REVIEW OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THERE IS NO POWER OF REVIEW BESTOWED UPON THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL BEING A STATUTORY AUTHORITY UNLESS CONFERRED WITH THE POWER OF REVIEW CANNOT REVIEW ITS ORDER. UNLESS THERE ARE MANIFEST ERRORS, WHICH ARE OBVIOUS, CLEAR AND SELF-EVIDENT, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT RECALL ITS PREVIOUS ORDER IN AN ATTEMPT TO REWRITE THE ORDER. U/S. 254(2) ONLY SUCH MISTAKES ARE RECTIFIABLE FOR WHICH NO ELABORATE REASONS OR INQUIRY IS NECESSARY. 3. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND DISCUSSION, THE MISC. APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON DT. 23.7.2010 SD/- SD/- (. . ), , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. (. . ), (D.K.TYAGI), JUDICIAL MEMBER () DATE:23.7.2010 PARIDA - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT : 2 / THE RESPONDENT: 3. /THE CIT, 4. ()/ THE CIT(A), 5. / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. / TRUE COPY , / BY ORDER , [ ] SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ( WORD TO PDF CONVERTER - UNREGISTERED ) HTTP://WWW.WORD-TO-PDF-CONVERTER.NET