Nimisha Khadi Gramodyog Mandal, Mehsana V. The Dy.CIT.,(CIA), Mehsana

ITSSA 297/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0688 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-04-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P M PATEL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IT(SS)A NO.297/AHD/2012 BLOCK PERIOD: 01.04.1989 TO 02.12.1999 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S.S. GODARA JM] IT(SS)A NO.297/AHD/2012 BLOCK PERIOD: 01.04.1989 TO 02.12.1999 NIMISHA KHADI GRAMODYOG MANDAL, ................. ..............APPELLANT AT POST-JAMLA, TA-KALOL, DISTT. MEHSANA [PAN: AAATN 4908 N] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIA) .......... ...RESPONDENT MEHSANA. APPEARANCES BY: P.M. PATEL , FOR THE APPELLANT SUBHASH BAINS, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 27, 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : APRIL 30, 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF ORDER DATED 26 TH MARCH, 2012 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BD(3) READ WITH SECTION 144 AND 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 2 ND DECEMBER 1999. 2. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE VERY TRIBUNAL ORDER, WHEREBY MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER THUS CAME INTO EXISTENCE, HAS SINCE BEEN RECALLED. THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THUS CEASES TO HOLD GOOD IN LAW, AND , THE IMPUGNED ORDER DESERVES TO BE QUASHED FOR THIS SHORT REASON ALONE. IT(SS)A NO.297/AHD/2012 BLOCK PERIOD: 01.04.1989 TO 02.12.1999 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIES ON TH E STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO BE IN SEISIN OF THE MATTER AS THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE ORDER DATED 9 TH OCTOBER 2009, HAD REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO. HOWEVER, VIDE SUBSEQUENT ORDER DATED 12 TH APRIL 2013, THE EARLIER ORDER WAS RECALLED. CONSE QUENTLY, AS LEARNED COUNSEL RIGHTLY CONTENDS, THE VERY LEGAL BA SIS OF IMPUGNED ORDER CEASES TO EXIST IN THE EYES OF LAW. WE, THEREFORE, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15 TH DECEMBER 2010 GIVING EFFECT TO THE TRIBUNALS EARLI ER ORDER. ALL OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE, IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTE R, PURELY ACADEMIC. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TERM S INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015. SD/- SD/- S. S. GODARA PRAMOD KUM AR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC ASSISTANT/DEPUTY REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD