A.Asangan, Vedaranyam V. ITO, Nagapattinam

MA 94/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6879 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T N BETGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: N QUADIR HOSEYN
• Keywords: Search and seizure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 94/MDS/2011 [IN I.T.A. NO. 1075/MDS/2010] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI A. ASANGAN, 7, SANNATHI STREET, VEDARANYAM 609 001 [PAN: AKIPA2036N] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (2) NAGAPATTINAM 611 001. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N. QUADIR HOSEYN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI T.N. BETGIRI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.08.2011 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, IT HAS BEEN C ANVASSED THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD HAS CREPT IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDE R PASSED IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED CASE ON 06.05.2011, WHICH IS RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECT ION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. PERUSAL OF THE ENTIRE RECORD CLEARLY EVINCE THA T NO SUCH MISTAKE, WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE OBVIOUS, PATENT AND APPARENT ON RECOR D, HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE APPLICANT. THE APPLICANT HAS WISHED TO RECALL THE O RDER, SO THAT IT CAN BE REWRITTEN, BUT WE ARE AFRAID THAT SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT DO ES NOT EMPOWER US TO REVIEW OUR ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN SET OF EVIDENCES, TH E BENCH HAS TAKEN A VIEW AND THROUGH THIS PETITION, WHICH IS NOT AN ARGUMENTATIV E FOR, IT HAS BEEN TRIED TO M.P M.P M.P M.P. NO. . NO. . NO. . NO.9 99 94 44 4/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/11 1111 11 2 ESTABLISH THAT THE BENCH HAS COME TO AN INCORRECT D ECISION. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEE N PLACED HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THIS BENCH IN PARA 6 AT PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECO RD. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION STANDS DISMISSED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF TH E ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.08.2011. SD/- SD/- (O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 19.08.2011 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.