Shri Philip Sakthivel, CHENNAI v. ITO, CHENNAI

MA 140/CHNY/2011 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 14021724 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAIPS2091P
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number MA 140/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Shri Philip Sakthivel, CHENNAI
Respondent ITO, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 02-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 02-09-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 28-07-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.P. NO. 140/MDS/2011 (IN I.T.A. NO. 71/MDS/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 SHRI PHILIP SAKTHIVEL 1229 20 TH MAIN ROAD ANNA NAGAR CHENNAI 600 040. PAN: AAIPS2091P (PETITIONER) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE XIV(3) CHENNAI 600 034. (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N. B ETGIRI JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 26.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION RUNNING INTO T EN PAGES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HE PLEADS FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDE R OF THIS TRIBUNAL. A READING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WOULD SHOW TH AT RECALL HAS BEEN PLEADED ON ACCOUNT OF TWO REASONS NAMELY WRONG AP PRECIATION OF DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. RAJESH JHAVERI M.P. NO.140/MDS/11 2 STOCK BROKERS P. LTD. (291 ITR 500) (SC) AND NON-CO NSIDERATION OF A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S NAFED. 2. WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. THOUGH A REQUEST WAS PLACED BY A MEMBER OF THE BAR THAT THE MATTER MIGHT BE HEARD AFTER TWO WE EKS THE ADVOCATE WHO SOUGHT SUCH ADJOURNMENT WAS NOT HAVING ANY AUTH ORIZATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISP OSE OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON MERITS. 3. AFTER A LABORIOUS READING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION WE FIND IT TO BE MISCONCEIVED ARGUMENTATIVE AND QUESTIONS THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE IT. THIS TRIBUNAL HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ORIGINAL R ETURN HAVING BEEN PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF INCOME-TAX ACT 1 961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) THE REOPENING WAS JUSTIFIED BASED ON TH E REASONS CITED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO M AKE OUT A DIFFERENT CASE AND SHOW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT APPRECIATED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JHAVERI (S UPRA) CORRECTLY. 4. VIS--VIS SECOND PLEADING THAT THE CERTIFICATE I SSUED BY M/S NAFED WAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY M.P. NO.140/MDS/11 3 REFERRED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 11 OF THE ORDER. ON THE FACE OF THE VARIOUS OTHER EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD DETAILS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN CLEARLY SPELLED OUT AT PARA 11 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THIS CERTIFICATE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE OF ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPECTS THE TRIBUNAL D ISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOW SEEKING IS A REVIEW IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION PETITION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT HAVING ANY POWER TO MAKE A REVIEW OF ITS ORDER UNDER SECTION 2 54(2) OF THE ACT. NO GLARING OR APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD WARRANTING RECTIFICATION AS PRESCRIBED UNDER LAW HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT. WE DO N OT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MUCH LESS ANY ERROR WA RRANTING RECTIFICATION. 5. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 ND SEPTEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 2 ND SEPTEMBER 2011. KRI. COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./GUA RD FILE