Shri Subhash Trivedi Ratlam, 13-14 V. DCIT Ratlam, Ratlam`

MA 10/Ind/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3528 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNEET KUMAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Revised return
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.10/IND/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.490/IND/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SHRI SUBHASH TRIVEDI 3, SHASTRI NAGAR RATLAM (M.P.) / VS. DC IT RATLAM ( APPELLANT ) ( RE VENUE ) P.A. NO. ABAPT7755L APPELLANT BY SHRI VIJAY BANSAL, CA RE VENUE BY SHRI PUNEET KUMAR , SR. D R DATE OF HEARING: 23.10.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.11.2020 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THIS MISC. APPLICATION BY ASSESSEE SEEKING FOR RECA LLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.07.2019 PASSED IN IT A NO.490/IND/2018 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013- 14. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND NO.7 & 8 WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DECI DED BY THE SUBHASH TRIVEDI /MA NO.10/IND/2020 2 TRIBUNAL, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER MAY BE RECALL TO TH E EXTENT OF ADJUDICATING GROUND NO.7 & 8 OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHI LE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL AS INADVERTENTLY NOT ADJUDICATED GROUND NO.7 & 8 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL THAT READS AS UNDER: 7. THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS APPRECIATED AND ACKNOWLE DGED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DEPOSITOR AND HAS FURTHER APPRECIATED THAT THE LD. AO WAS NOT JU STIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE A CT, BUT HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS, FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE A PPELLANT HAD FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT WITH REVISED COMPU TATION OF INCOME FOR THE RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME BEFORE THE LD. AO AND BEFORE HIM ALSO, AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT TO FILE REVISED RETURN FOR R ECTIFYING THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS, ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE REC TIFICATION OF MISTAKE REQUESTED BY THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY LAWFU L REASON. 5. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US, WE HEREBY RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.07.2019 ITANO.490/IND/2018 FOR LIMITED PURPOSE O F ADJUDICATING GROUND NO.7 & 8 OF THE ASSESSEES APPE AL. SUBHASH TRIVEDI /MA NO.10/IND/2020 3 6. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.11.20 20. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER INDORE; DATED : 06/ 11/2020 CTX? P.S/. . . COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUA RD FILE. BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY/DDO, INDORE