M/s Krashi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sehore V. The ACIT, Bhopal

ITA 226/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1491 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2009
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S K KHANDELWAL
• Section: 11

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 4 I.T.A.NO. 226/IND/2009 KUMS SEHORE I I IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. AAALK-0364P I.T.A.NO. 226/IND/2009 A.Y. : 2005-06 KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, ACIT, SEHORE VS 2(1), BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.KHANDELWAL, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K.KARAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.11.2009 O R D E R PER V.K. GUPTA, A.M. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL DATED 12.1.2009, FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED THOUGH NOT MENTIONED IN A SPECIFIC MANNER WERE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES RAISED IN I.T.A.NO. 397/IND/2009, WHICH HAD BEEN HEARD ON 12.10.2009 AND, THEREFORE, A SIMILAR DECISION COULD BE TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO AG REED. PAGE 2 OF 4 I.T.A.NO. 226/IND/2009 KUMS SEHORE I I 3. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED ALL THE ISSU ES IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 397/IND/2009 TO THE FILE OF A.O. VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 12 TH OCTOBER, 2009. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUN AL IN PARA 4 OF THE SAID ORDER ARE AS UNDER :- 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VE RY OUT-SET, SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 4.1 AT PAGE 3 OF TH E APPELLATE ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD HELD THAT INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED/COMPUTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OF THE INCO ME- TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, WHILE COMPUTING THE SAME, THESE OBSERVATIONS WERE NOT GIVEN EFFECT TO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER, SUBMI TTED THAT INCOME AS PER THIS FINDING WAS TO BE COMPUTED IN THE MANNER AS MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS SUBMITTED BEFORE US. AT THIS STAGE, THE BENCH OPINE D THAT THIS COMPUTATION NEEDED VERIFICATION. HENCE, A LL THE ISSUES RAISED IN APPEAL HAD TO BE RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF A.O. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, STATED THAT NO GROUND TO THIS EFFECT HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND ONLY, THEN, THIS PAGE 3 OF 4 I.T.A.NO. 226/IND/2009 KUMS SEHORE I I ISSUE COULD BE DISPOSED OF . WE, HOWEVER, ARE OF TH E OPINION THAT AS FAR AS THE ASPECT OF COMPUTATION AS PER SECTIONS 11 TO 13 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS NOT DISPUTED AND IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DONE ACCORDINGLY . HENCE, FILING OF ADDITIONAL GROUND WOULD ONLY RESU LT INTO DELAY OF DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL WHICH IS NOT WARRANTED. HENCE, WE RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE I SSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE SU CH OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT WHILE DOING SO, THE A.O. SHALL GRANT A N ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE FACTS BEING IDENTICAL, HENCE, FOLLOWING THE RAT IO OF THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED CASE, WE R ESTORE ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THIS APPEAL, TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. ON SIMILAR LINES. THUS, ALL THESE ISSUES RAISED, IN THIS APPEA L, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STA NDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PAGE 4 OF 4 I.T.A.NO. 226/IND/2009 KUMS SEHORE I I THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19TH NOVEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (V. K. GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2009. CPU* 1117D