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

MA 69/CHNY/2010 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 6921724 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN ABGPS4234H
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number MA 69/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant ITO, CHENNAI
Respondent Shri M.Sevugan Chetty, Devakottai
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 13-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 13-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 13-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 13-08-2010
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 25-03-2010
Judgment 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