The ITO, Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Swaminarayan Jewellers, Ahmedabad

MA 101/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7105 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P L KUREEL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. MOHAN ALANKA MONY, AM) M. A. NO.101/AHD/2011 (IN IT A NO.2876/AHD/2007:A.Y. 2004-05) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6, AHMEDABAD VS M/S. SWAMINARAYAN JEWELLERS, 8, RAJ PLAZA COMPLEX, GURUKUL ROAD, MEMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD PA NO. AARFS 5484 P (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI P. L. KUREEL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 11-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11-11-2011 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI : THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF VIDE ORDER DATED 22-09-2010 WHEREBY THE DEPARTMENTAL WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REVEA LS THAT GROUND NO.1 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS DISMISSED CONSI DERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, ON GROUND NO.2 THE DEP ARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS PARTLY ALLOWED CONSIDERING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REFERRED TO THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE AND SUBM ITTED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE NOT REASONABLE. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE THROUGH AFFIXTURE. MA NO.101/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.2876/AHD//2007) THE ITO, WARD 6(2), AHMEDABAD VS M/S. SWAMINARAYAN JEWELLERS 2 4. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E LIGHT OF THE AVERMENTS CONTAINED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION AND CO NSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MI STAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDER ALREADY P ASSED ON MERITS AND CANNOT SUBSTITUTE THE FINDINGS GIVEN EARLIER. W E RELY UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANAMIKA BUILDERS, 251 ITR 585, DECISION OF THE HONBLE ANDH RA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IDEAL ENGINEERING 251 ITR, 743 , DECISION OF THE HONBLE M. P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AGARWAL WAR EHOUSING AND LEASING, 257 ITR 235 AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ADIYER HOTEL, 294 ITR 155. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT I N THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSE D. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE REVE NUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- MA NO.101/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO.2876/AHD//2007) THE ITO, WARD 6(2), AHMEDABAD VS M/S. SWAMINARAYAN JEWELLERS 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD