ITO, Bhubaneswar v. Smt Satarupa Nayak, Bhubaneswar

MA 83/CTK/2009 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 8322124 RSA 2009
Bench Cuttack
Appeal Number MA 83/CTK/2009
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Bhubaneswar
Respondent Smt Satarupa Nayak, Bhubaneswar
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 23-07-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 23-07-2010
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 27-11-2009
Judgment 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