Hemalatha Chandran v. The Income-tax Officer, Business Ward III(3), Chennai
[Citation -2016-LL-0930-197]

Citation 2016-LL-0930-197
Appellant Name Hemalatha Chandran
Respondent Name The Income-tax Officer, Business Ward III(3), Chennai
Court ITAT-Chennai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/09/2016
Assessment Year 2011-12
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags income from business
Bot Summary: Shri A.S.Sriraman, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has specifically raised ground No. 8 with regard to disallowance of Rs.4,42,885/- under the head income from business. The assessee has also raised ground No.10 with regard to disallowance of Rs.7,00,000/- under the head income from business. According to the learned counsel for the assesse, non disposal of the specific grounds raised by the assessee is an error within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the Act. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned department representative, the assessee has raised grounds no.8 and 10 with regard to Rs.4,42,885/- and Rs.7,00,000/- respectively under the head Income from Other Sources. These two grounds raised by the assessee was not 3 M.A. No.200/Mds/2016 disposed off by this Tribunal in the order dated 01.04.2016. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.603 /Mds/2016 is re-opened only for the purpose of disposing grounds no.8 and 10 raised by the assessee. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is allowed.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P.No.200/Mds/2016 in I.T.A.No.603/Mds/2015 Assessment year : 2011-12 Smt.Hemalatha Chandran, Income Tax Officer, C/o. Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate, v. Business Ward III(3), New No.14, Old No.82, Chennai 600 034. Flat No.5, 1st Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020. PAN: AACPC 2079 H (Petitioner) (Respondent) Petitioner by : Shri A.S.Sriraman, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT Date of Hearing : 30.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2016 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: assessee filed present miscellaneous petition on ground that grounds no. 8 and 10 was not disposed off. 2 M.A. No.200/Mds/2016 2. Shri A.S.Sriraman, learned counsel for assessee submitted that assessee has specifically raised ground No. 8 with regard to disallowance of Rs.4,42,885/- under head income from business . assessee has also raised ground No.10 with regard to disallowance of Rs.7,00,000/- under head income from business . These grounds were not disposed off by this Tribunal while disposing off appeal. According to learned counsel for assesse, non disposal of specific grounds raised by assessee is error within meaning of Section 254(2) of Act. 3. We heard Shri Shiva Srinivas, learned department representative also. learned department representative very fairly conceded that grounds No.8 and 10 raised by assessee is not disposed off by this Tribunal and therefore, to that extent, there is error in order of this Tribunal. 4. We have considered rival submissions on either side and also perused material available on record. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for assessee and learned department representative, assessee has raised grounds no.8 and 10 with regard to Rs.4,42,885/- and Rs.7,00,000/- respectively under head Income from Other Sources . These two grounds raised by assessee was not 3 M.A. No.200/Mds/2016 disposed off by this Tribunal in order dated 01.04.2016. Therefore, to that extent, there is error in order of this Tribunal which needs to be rectified. Accordingly, appeal of assessee in ITA No.603 /Mds/2016 is re-opened only for purpose of disposing grounds no.8 and 10 raised by assessee. registry is directed to post appeal in ITA No.603/Mds/2016 for disposal of grounds no.8 & 10 on 27.10.2016. Since date of hearing is announced in open court in presence of both parties, notice of hearing need not be issued to either party for hearing on 27.10.2016. In other words, copy of this order shall be treated as notice for hearing. 5. In result, miscellaneous application filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 30th September, 2016 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) Accountant Member Judicial Member Chennai, Dated, 30th September, 2016. sp. 4 M.A. No.200/Mds/2016 Copy to: 1. Applicant 2. /Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GF. Hemalatha Chandran v. Income-tax Officer, Business Ward III(3), Chennai
Report Error