Meena Garg, V. Addl CIT Range -2,

ITA 3652/DEL/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0693 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K RAVI RAMA CHANDARAN
• Section: 143(3); 54; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NO.3652/DEL/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 SMT. MEENA GARG, ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , C/O M/S. M.L. STEEL, VS. RANGE-2, GHAZIABAD. 101, NAI BASTI, GHAZIABAD. PAN: ACGPG5266L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI K. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K. RAVI RAMA CHANDARAN, SR. D R. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS ARISEN OUT OF THE ORDER DATE D 12.05.2007 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS) UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT), WHEREBY HE RECTIFIED HIS EARLIER ORDER DATED 02.05.2005 PASSED IN AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEAL) GHAZIABAD HAD ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF T HE CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WHICH OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN UPHELD BY THE LEARNED 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) GHAZIABAD U/S 1 54 OF INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EAL), GHAZIABAD HAD NO JURISDICTION U/S 154 OF INCOME TAX ACT TO UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER. 3. THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER EXISTED PASSED BY THE LEARNED ADDI TIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HENCE THE JURISDICTION O F THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) GHAZIAB AD U/S 154 OF INCOME TAX ACT DOES NOT EXIST. 4. THUS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) GHAZIABAD IN APPEAL NO.07-05-06 GBD DT.02-05-2005 MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED TO MEET THE BO TH END OF JUSTICE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORIGI NAL ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 02.05.2005 WAS APPEALED AGAINS T BY THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND THE T RIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 05.05.2009 IN ITA NO.3368/DEL/2005 AND CO NO.112/DE L/2007, HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORED THE MATT ER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR COMPLIANCE TO PASS FRESH ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3 5. SINCE THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 02.05.2005 HAS BE EN SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR HIS FRE SH ADJUDICATION, THE PRESENT IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SEC. 154 RECTIFYING THE ORIGINAL ORDER NEED TO BE SENT BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR HIS FRESH CONSIDERAT ION AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AS WELL AS TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR HIS FRESH DISPOSAL AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 6 TH JANUARY, 2011 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 6 TH JANUARY, 2011. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.