ASST CIT RG 21(3), MUMBAI V. CHHAYA B PAREKH, MUMBAI

ITA 6978/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9090 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GIRIJA DAYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARAS S SAVLA

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI . . !'# , $ %& BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM ./I.T.A. NO.6978/MUM/2011 ( ' ' ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-21(3), C-11 BLDG.,, 5 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051 / VS. MS. CHHAYA B. PAREKH, NATIONAL PLASTIC, NATIONAL HOUSE, SAKI VIHAR ROAD, CHANDIVALI, MUMBAI-400 072 &( $ ./ )* ./PAN/GIR NO. AFYPP 5618N ( (+ /APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY: SHRI GIRIJA DAYAL ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY SHRI PARAS S. SAVLA / 01$ / DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2012 23' / 01$ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :18.12.2012 %4 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-32, MUMBAI DT.18.3.2010 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2 007-08. 2. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO UNDERSTAND THE BACKGROUND OF THIS APPEAL. AN APPEAL BY THE REVENU E WAS PREFERRED AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) INADV ERTENTLY IN THE NAME OF SHRI BABANRAO V. MANDE. SUBSEQUENTLY, VIDE APPL ICATION DT. 15.12.2011, REVENUE FILED REVISED FORM NO. 36 STATI NG THAT DUE TO ITA NO.6978/MUM/2011 2 TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN WRONGLY MENTIONED AS SHRI BABANRAO V. MANDE INSTEAD IT SH OULD BE MS. CHHAYA B. PAREKH. THAT APPEAL WAS HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED BY ONE OF US (AM) ON 16.5.2012 BY WHICH THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN INADVERTENTLY FILED. 4. AFTER CAREFULLY PERUSING THE EARLIER FORM NO. 36 , REVISED FORM NO. 36 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 4956/MUM/20 10, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOTHI NG BUT DUPLICATE APPEAL OF ITA NO.4956/M/10. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL BY TH E REVENUE BECOMES OTIOSE AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 5 06 )& / 7 $5) / )0 8' ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.12.2012 %4 / 3' $ 7 9%6 18.12.2012 3 / : SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /PRESIDENT $ %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 9% DATED 18.12.2012 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO.6978/MUM/2011 3 %4 / ,0 < '0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. = ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. = / CIT 5. >: ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. :? @ / GUARD FILE. %4 / BY ORDER, - 0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// A / 8 ) DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI