Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. M/s. Sundaram Clayton Ltd
[Citation -2015-LL-0311-38]

Citation 2015-LL-0311-38
Appellant Name Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai
Respondent Name M/s. Sundaram Clayton Ltd.
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 11/03/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags rectification of mistake
Bot Summary: For Appellant : Mr. J.Narayanaswamy For Respondents : Mr. Venkatnarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan COMMON JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in allowing the miscellaneous petitions filed by the assessee in part, the present appeals have been 2 preferred by the Revenue. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the order is quoted hereinbelow :- 2. In the operative portion of the order, it was inadvertently stated that the order of the ld. This mistake crept in the record and it should be 'the order of the authorities are set aside' instead of 'we uphold the order of the CIT to the extent. Aggrieved by the above order of the Tribunal, the present appeals have been filed by the appellant/Revenue. At the time of hearing, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the parties that the substantial question of law framed is in relation to the merit order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.696/Mds/1996 and ITA No.2326/Mds/1997 dated 7.12.04. The present appeal arises against the miscellaneous order passed for rectification of the mistake, which has been allowed in part by the Tribunal.


1 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 11.03.2015 CORAM HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.KARUPPIAH T.C.A. NO. 1480 & 1481 OF 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. Appellant - Vs - M/s.Sundaram Clayton Ltd. No.24, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai 600 006. .. Respondent Appeal filed under Section 260A of Income Tax Act against order dated 5.1.07 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'B' Bench, Chennai, made in M.P. Nos. 52 & 53/Mds/2005 in ITA Nos.696/Mds/1996 and 2326/Mds/1997. For Appellant : Mr. J.Narayanaswamy For Respondents : Mr. Venkatnarayanan for M/s.Subbaraya Aiyar Padmanabhan COMMON JUDGMENT (DELIVERED BY R.SUDHAKAR, J.) Aggrieved by order of Tribunal in allowing miscellaneous petitions filed by assessee in part, present appeals have been 2 preferred by Revenue. This Court, vide order dated 17.12.07, admitted appeal framing following question of law :- Whether on facts and circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in holding that transaction is not hit by provisions of Section 50, even though assessee had clearly demarcated depreciable assets sold during year, as part of sale of undertaking and transfer price was also fixed after taking into account value of depreciable assets and immovable assets of assessee company? 2. Two miscellaneous petitions, viz., M.P. Nos.52 and 53/Mds/2005 came to be filed in ITA Nos.696/Mds/1996 and 2326/Mds/1999, by assessee for rectification of mistake that had crept in order of Tribunal. For better clarity, relevant portion of order is quoted hereinbelow :- 2. We have heard ld. Representatives of parties and considered their submissions. Tribunal, in Page No.5 Para No.5 found that section 50 is not attracted as it was clear case of sale of industrial undertaking. Therefore, order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld on issue. However, in operative portion of order, it was inadvertently stated that order of ld. CIT (A) is upheld. This is assessee appeal part. Hence, it should read as order of authorities is reversed on this issue . That amendment is mandatory in view of findings of Tribunal in para 5 while deciding assessee appeal. So also in issue of 80 HHC, in that also after deciding issue in favour of 3 assessee, order of authorities below has to be set aside. This mistake crept in record and it should be 'the order of authorities are set aside' instead of 'we uphold order of CIT (A) to extent. Aggrieved by above order of Tribunal, present appeals have been filed by appellant/Revenue. 3. Heard learned standing counsel appearing for appellant and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent and perused materials available in typed set of documents. 4. At time of hearing, it was brought to notice of this Court by learned counsel for parties that substantial question of law framed is in relation to merit order passed by Tribunal in ITA No.696/Mds/1996 and ITA No.2326/Mds/1997 dated 7.12.04. However, present appeal arises against miscellaneous order passed for rectification of mistake, which has been allowed in part by Tribunal. In view of fact that issue raised in present appeals has no relevance, as same is subject matter of challenge in main appeals, issue as raised in these appeals does not required to be answered. 5. In view of above reason, these appeals are closed. However, 4 liberty is given to Department to pursue matter, if so advised. (R.S.J.) (R.K.J.) 11.03.2015 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No GLN To 1. Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai. 2. M/s.Sundaram Clayton Ltd. No.24, (Old No.8), Haddows Road Chennai 600 006. 5 R.SUDHAKAR, J. AND R.KARUPPIAH, J. GLN T.C.A. NOS.1480 & 1481 OF 2007 11.03.2015 Commissioner of Income-tax, Chennai v. M/s. Sundaram Clayton Ltd
Report Error