Benjamin Marcus v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle XI, [Now ACIT, NCC – 5] Chennai
[Citation -2016-LL-0921-170]
| Citation | 2016-LL-0921-170 |
|---|---|
| Appellant Name | Benjamin Marcus |
| Respondent Name | The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle XI, [Now ACIT, NCC – 5] Chennai |
| Court | ITAT-Chennai |
| Relevant Act | Income-tax |
| Date of Order | 21/09/2016 |
| Assessment Year | 2008-09 |
| Judgment | View Judgment |
| Bot Summary: | Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the above order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee is quite contrary to the pronouncement made by the 2 M.P. No.154/M/16 Hon ble Members of the Bench immediately after the hearing of the case that the case will be remitted to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration. AR during the course of appeal hearing were not brought on record and therefore, he pleaded that the order of the Tribunal may be recalled and posted for fresh hearing. The Pune Benches of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Jinendra Smelting Rolling Mills 2008 15 DTR 22 has held that pronouncement made by the Bench immediately after hearing both the sides cannot be said to be an order passed under section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act and hence, there was no rectifiable mistake in the written order passed subsequently for the reason that it was not in conformity with the said pronouncement; however, the Tribunal committed apparent mistake as the statement under section 132(4) made by a party was not considered vis- -vis an order of the Supreme Court claimed to be cited. In view of the above decision of the Pune Benches of the Tribunal, it is amply clear that pronouncement made by the Tribunal immediately after 3 M.P. No.154/M/16 hearing both the sides cannot be said to be an order passed under section 254(1) of the Act. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the arguments advanced at the time of hearing was not brought on record and pleaded that the order of the Tribunal dated 25.05.2016 may please be recalled and heard afresh. On going through the order of the Tribunal, we find that by oversight, the submissions made during the course of hearing were not brought on record. We are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Tribunal dated 25.05.2016 should be recalled and posted for fresh hearing. |