ACIT, Circle-1(1), Sambalpur V. Tikeswar Bag, Bolangir

MA 1/CTK/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7781 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBIT SAHU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL ACIT, Circle Sambalpur PAN/GIR No (Appellant Per Bench These M.As Tribunal dated & ITA No.108/CTK/2022) 2017-18. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.Nos.1 to 7/CTK/2024 (in IT(ss)A No.25 to 30/CTK/20 ITA No.108/CTK/2022) Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2017 ACIT, Circle -1(1), Vs. Tikeswar Bag Badasaimara, Bollangir 767307 PAN/GIR No.DARPB 1978 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri J.M.Patnaik, Adv & Subit Sahu, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR Date of Hearing : 19/0 Date of Pronouncement : 19/0 O R D E R These M.As filed by the revenue arise out of dated 20.10.2023 in IT(SS) A Nos No.25 to 30/CTK/2022 & ITA No.108/CTK/2022) for the assessment years Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.Nos.1 to 7/CTK/2024 /CTK/2022 & to 2017-18 Tikeswar Bag, At-Tengra, Badasaimara, Bollangir- Respondent) & Subit Sahu, Adv : Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR 04/2024 /04/2024 filed by the revenue arise out of the order of the .25 to 30/CTK/2022 for the assessment years 2011-12 to M.A.Nos.1 to 7/CTK/2024 (in IT(ss)A No.25 to 30/CTK/2022 & ITA No.108/CTK/2022) Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page2 | 4 2. Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr. DR appeared for the revenue and Shri J.M.Pattnaik & Subit Sahu, ld ARs appeared for the assessee. 3. It was submitted by ld Sr DR that the revenue has filed the impugned M.As on the ground that the revenue has not been heard. Ld Sr DR drew our attention to the provisions of section 254(1), which requires an opportunity of being heard to be granted to both the sides. It was the submission that there was no recording of any arguments of either side. It was the submission that this was a mistake apparent from record and consequently, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be recalled and the appeals disposed off on merits denovo. 4. In reply, ld AR appeared on behalf of the assessee submitted that consequential orders to the order of the Tribunal has been passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance to the Tribunal order and submitted that the refund orders in respect of all the assessment years involved have also been issued to the assessee, and the Revenue having accepted the order of the Tribunal, it was not appropriate for the revenue to raise the ground of not being heard and there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of the M.As show that the grounds raised in the M.As is that the Tribunal has decided the M.As on its own. The grounds raised are that the Tribunal has committed a mistake by deciding the appeals in prejudice manner and against the M.A.Nos.1 to 7/CTK/2024 (in IT(ss)A No.25 to 30/CTK/2022 & ITA No.108/CTK/2022) Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page3 | 4 natural justice. The Revenue has not been able to point out any specific mistake in the order of the Tribunal. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the revenue was represented by Shri Charan Dass, Sr DR. A perusal of the appeal folder shows that on behalf of the assessee an adjournment had been sought. The adjournment had been rejected and the appeals disposed off. It is only when any submission is made by counsel on behalf of the revenue or on behalf of the assessee, that the same are recorded in the order. The Tribunal cannot, must not and will not adduce arguments of either side, unless such arguments come from the concerned counsel. In these circumstances, as no specific error has been pointed out in the order of the Tribunal, which is apparent from the record, M.As. filed by the revenue stand dismissed. 6. In the result, M.As. filed by the revenue stand dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/04/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 19/04/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) M.A.Nos.1 to 7/CTK/2024 (in IT(ss)A No.25 to 30/CTK/2022 & ITA No.108/CTK/2022) Assessment Years : 2011-12 to 2017-18 Page4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : ACIT, Circle -1(1), Sambalpur 2. The Respondent: Tikeswar Bag, At-Tengra, Badasaimara, Bollangir-767307 3. Pr.CIT, Sambalpur 4. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 5. Guard file. //True Copy//