ITO, Ludhiana V. Sh. Vinay Singal, Ludhiana

MA 106/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0772 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J S NAGAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 106/CHD/2012 IN ITA NO.506/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS SHRI VINAY SINGAL, WARD-V ( 4 ), C/O M/S EASTMAN IMPEX, LUDHIANA. INDUSTRIAL AREA-C,SUA ROAD, DHANDARI KALAN, LUDHIANA. PAN : ADVPS-8356H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.08.2013 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWNA, JM THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS MOVED BY T HE APPLICANT REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO . 506/CHD/2010 DATED 09.03.2012. 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT VIDE THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS AS UNDER : 2. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS STATED THAT APPEAL FILED IN THE ABOVESAID CASE WAS RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006-07, BUT AS PER THE ORDER NO. 506/CHD/2010 DATED 09.03.2012, IT HAS BEE N MENTIONED AS 2005-06 INSTEAD OF A.Y. 2006-07. 3. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED , WHICH IS AS UNDER : THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW T HE 2 CREDIT OF TDS OF RS. 1,94,387/-, WHICH WAS IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2005-06. 4. THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS REFLECT THAT IN THE M EMO OF APPEAL IN FORM NO.36, THE REVENUE HAD IN COLUMN NO.3 MENTIONED THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AS 2005-06, THOUGH IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESS MENT YEAR WAS SHOWN AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE COPY OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER AND THE APPELLATE ORDER FILED ALONGWITH THE MEMO OF APPEAL RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 0 9.03.2012, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06. THUS, IT SEEMS MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL AND THE SAME IS RECTIFIED VIDE THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE CAUSE-LIST OF THE ORDER WOULD READ AS : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 5. THE SECOND GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT REVENUE VI DE THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS THAT WHILE DECIDING TH E APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAD, BY AN ERROR NOT DECIDED THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED IN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND TH AT THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2012. TO THIS EXTENT, THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME IS RECALLED FOR THE LIMIT ED PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATING GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE WHIC H READS AS UNDER : 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALL OW THE CREDIT OF TDS OF RS. 1,94,387/-, WHICH WAS IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2005-06. 6. IN VIEW THEREOF, RECALLING OUR ORDER DATED 09.0 3.2010 TO THE EXTENT OF THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE, THE APPEA L IS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 3 12.08.2012, FOR THE PURPOSE OF WHICH ISSUE OF FORMA L NOTICE IS WAIVED WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PARTIES. 7. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND AUGUST, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 ND AUGUST,2013. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH