The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad V. Nikhil Vinukant Shah, Ahmedabad

MA 110/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6442 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K DEV
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKKHIL VINUKANT SHAH
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO.108 TO 110/AHD/2019 IN ./ ITA NO.146 TO 148/AHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08, 2010-11 AND 2011-12 ITO, WARD-5(2)(1) AHMEDABAD. VS NIKHIL VINUKANT SHAH 25R-B RIDDHI APARTMENT OPP: MRUDANG FLATS B/S. VASANA BUS STAND VASANA, AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. DEV, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKKHIL VINUKANT SHAH / DATE OF HEARING : 03/05/2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/05/2019 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : PRESENT THREE MAS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE POINTING OU T APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 17.9.2018. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE BY WAY OF AN EX PARTE ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER OF TH E LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE MANDATE PROVIDED UND ER SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, TRIBUNAL REM ITTED THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION. IN THE M AS, REVENUE HAS PLEADED THAT THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE NOT REMITTE D THESE MATTERS TO MA NO.108 TO 110/AHD/2017 - 2 - THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) BECAUSE THE LD.CIT(A) DECIDE D THE APPEALS ON MERIT. 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE POWER OF RECTIFI CATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED, IS AN OBVIOUS PATE NT MISTAKE, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE, WHICH I S REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS, ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINI ONS. IF WE PERUSE THE RECORD, THEN IT WOULD REVEAL THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER DUE DELIBERATION OF THE REASONI NG GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 255(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT IS A JUDGM ENT ON MERIT AND IN THE GARB OF PRESENT MAS. THE REVENUE WANTS TO GET THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REVIEWED WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2 ) OF THE ACT. HENCE ALL THE MAS ARE REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH MAY, 2019. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 06/05/2019