M/s. Pranam Foundations, CHENNAI v. DCIT, CHENNAI

MA 116/CHNY/2007 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 11621724 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AABFP8019N
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number MA 116/CHNY/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
Appellant M/s. Pranam Foundations, CHENNAI
Respondent DCIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 29-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 22-10-2010
Next Hearing Date 22-10-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 29-05-2007
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. 116/MDS/2007 (IN IT(SS) A NOS. 87 & 98/MDS/2005) BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1-4-1990 TO 26-9-2000 M/S PRANAM FOUNDATIONS G-112 ANNA NAGAR CHENNAI-600 102. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I(1) CHENNAI. (PAN:AABFP8019N) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SRI S. SRIDHAR RESPONDENT BY : SRI P. B. SEKARAN O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS) A. NOS. 87 & 98/MDS/2005 DATED 12-01-2007. 2. SRI S. SRIDHAR ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE AND SRI P.B. SEKARAN LEARNED CIT-DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCES AS PRODUCED IN THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS THE SUBMISSI ON THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD M.A. NO. 116/MDS/2007 2 MADE OBSERVATIONS IN THE ORDER WHICH WERE NOT SUPPO RTED BY THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCES AS ARE AVAILABLE. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 37 AND 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE DEB ITED IN THE NOTE BOOK FOUND DURING THE SEARCH WERE SUBSTANTIALLY ACCOUNTE D FOR IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE BALANCE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN EXPLAIN ED WAS OFFERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 40 LAKHS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THERE WERE FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL THE SAME MAY BE RECALLED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. IN REPLY THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIB UNAL HAS ALREADY APPLIED ITS MIND ON THE FACTS AS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE IT A ND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN PARA 7 OF ITS ORDER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ANY RECAL L WOULD AMOUNT TO A REVIEW ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL THE FACTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND THE PAPER BOOK HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS THE SUBMIS SION THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF PARA 7 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD C ONSIDERED THE MATTER IN LINE WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THIS IS SO IT IS TO BE NOTICED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE ORDER AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. IN SUCH A CASE A RECALL OF THE SAID ORDER TO RECONSIDER THE EVIDENCES AS ARE A VAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW M.A. NO. 116/MDS/2007 3 THAT AS ALL THE EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY T HE TRIBUNAL NO ERROR CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL IN IT(SS) A. NOS. 87 & 98/MDS/2005 DATED 12-01-2007 WHICH COULD BE RECTIFI ED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2). IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29-10-2 010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 29 TH OCTOBER 2010. H. COPY TO: APPLICANT/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE