ACIT NON CORPORATE RANGE 13 , CHENNAI vs. KOUSALYA, CHENNAI

Department by : Mr. J.Pavithran Kumar, JCIT Assessee by : Mrs.S.Sriniranjani, Adv. : 18.12.2019 सुनवाई क. तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 18.12.2019 घोषणा क. तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by Revenue is directed against appellate Order dated 26.03.2018 passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai (hereinafter called “the CIT(A)”), in for assessment Year (ay)2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by Revenue in memo of appeal filed with the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”) read as under:-

“1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to facts and circumstances of the case. :- 2 -:

2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in passing appellate order for the assessment year 2012-13 when no assessment order exists for that assessment year.

3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.”

3. As could be seen from grounds of appeal filed by Revenue with tribunal , the main bone of grievance of Revenue in this appeal filed with tribunal is that Ld.CIT(A) has passed an appellate order u/s.250(6) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 for impugned ay: 2012-13 , while there is no assessment

Order passed by the AO for ay: 2012-13. It is claimed by learned DR before the Bench that AO has passed assessment order u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 of the 1961 Act, dated 31.03.2016 for ay: 2011-12 , while there is no assessment order passed by AO for ay: 2012-13. The Ld. DR submitted before the Bench that AO has filed an Miscellaneous Petition(MP) before Ld.CIT(A) u/s 154 of the 1961 Act for rectification of mistake apparent from record in the appellate order dated 26.03.2018 passed by learned CIT(A) but the same has not yet been disposed off by learned CIT(A) even as of today. A copy of the said Miscellaneous Petition (M.P.) filed by the AO before Ld.CIT(A) was placed on record by learned DR before the Bench which is now placed in file , and the same is reproduced hereunder:

Parthasarathy Nagar, 3rd Street Adambakkam, Chennai 600 088. Sub: - Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Assessing Officer dated 04.06.2018 Posting of hearing- reg.

Ref:- Order of CIT(A)-14 vide appeal dated 26.03.2018 for A.Y: 2012-13. ***** Please refer to the above.

2. The Assessing Officer has filed a miscellaneous petition pointing out certain mistakes in the CIT(A)'s order. The Assessing Officer's Miscellaneous Petition dated 09/05/2018 is enclosed for your perusal.

(Arising out of dated 26.03.2018 for AY 2012-13)

In this case CIT(A) passed order dated 26/03/2018 for AY 2012-13 against order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 dated 31.03.2016. No scrutiny assessment was made for AY 2012-13 till date. :- 4 -:

To rectify the mistakes apparent from the above said order this Miscellaneous Petition is filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Chennai, and it is prayed the above order may be cancelled and recalled. Yours faithfully, (Kamalasini V.I.R.S.) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Non-Corporate Circle-13(1), Chennai It is submitted by Ld.DR that the said Miscellaneous Petition has not been disposed off by the Ld.CIT(A) even as of date which is still pending for disposal before learned CIT(A) , and it is prayed by learned DR before the Bench that the directions may be issued to Ld.CIT(A) for early disposal of the aforesaid Miscellaneous Petition. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that infact there was an assessment framed by AO for ay:

2011-12 , vide assessment order dated 31.03.2016 passed by AO u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the 1961 Act. It is explained by learned DR that assessee was aggrieved by an assessment framed by AO and hence filed first appeal with Ld.CIT(A) raising its grievance on additions made by AO in its assessment order , but at the time of filing first appeal with learned CIT(A), a typing / clerical error took place by counsel who was filing appeal on behalf of the assessee with learned CIT(A) wherein erroneously ay mentioned in the appeal filed with learned CIT(A) was ay: 2012-13 while the correct ay was ay: 2011-12 which ought to have been mentioned by counsel of the assessee who filed first appeal with learned CIT(A) . It was explained by learned counsel for the assessee that this clerical/typing error remained un-noticed and finally learned CIT(A) :- 5 -: passed appellate order dated 26.03.2018 for ay: 2012-13 instead of mentioning correct ay: 2011-12. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee also submitted that it has also filed an Miscellaneous Petition before the Ld.CIT(A) u/s 154 of the 1961 Actto rectify the defect in mentioning of wrong ay which is a mistake apparent from records which has not yet been disposed off by Ld.CIT(A) even as of date and similar prayers are also made by learned counsel for the assessee to restore the matter back to the file of learned CIT(A) for rectifying this mistake apparent from records. However, learned counsel for the assessee has not filed before us copy of miscellaneous petition filed by assessee before learned CIT(A) u/s 154 of the 1961 Act . After hearing both the parties and perusing copy of miscellaneous petition filed by AO before learned CIT(A) under provisions of the 1961 Act and perusing grounds of appeal filed by Revenue before us, we direct Ld.CIT(A) to dispose off Miscellaneous Petitions filed before it u/s 154 of the 1961 Act on merits of the said M.P. in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of this order. We clarify that we have not commented on the merits of the issues which were adjudicated by authorities below and has confined ourselves to the issue of direction to Ld.CIT(A) to dispose off miscellaneous petitions filed before him expeditiously preferably within 90 days of receipt of this order on the merits of the MP in accordance with law , after verifying the contents of the M.P.. The leaned CIT(A) will decide miscellaneous petition filed before it in exercise of its powers under the provisions of the 1961 Act and after affording opportunity of being heard :- 6 -: to both the rival parties , uninfluenced by any of our observations in this order. With aforesaid directions, the appeal filed by Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. We order accordingly.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in 2012-13 is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in Open Court on this 18th day of December, 2019 in Chennai. (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (र!मत कोचर) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (RAMIT KOCHAR) "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai, 0दनांक/Dated: 18th December, 2019. TLN