Income-tax Officer, Ward - 1, Latur V. Bhaguram Pandurang Komatwad, Latur

MA 111/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5366 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” ᭠यायपीठ पुणे मᱶ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM M.A. No.111/PUN/2021 (Arising out of ITA No.1723/PUN/2017) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1, Latur. ........... आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/s. Bhaguram Pandurang Komatwad, At Post Harangal (BK), Taluka & Dist. Latur- 413531. PAN : AHPPK5689R ........ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / Respondent Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee by : Shri Sharad Shah सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07/01/2022 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 13/01/2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: The Revenue through this Miscellaneous Petition is seeking a rectification of the order of this Tribunal in ITA No.1723/PUN/2017 dt. 26/06/2020 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. We have thoughtfully gone through the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1723/PUN/2017 and find that the Tribunal after due consideration of the submissions of both the parties has remanded back the file to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for statistical purposes, consequently the case has not attained the finality in law. 3. We have also considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record, and we noted that the Revenue has not pointed out any specific mistake 2 MA No.111/PUN/2021 apparent in the order of the Tribunal. The Revenue, by filing this Miscellaneous Application, desires this Tribunal to review its own order. This Tribunal, in our opinion, does not have any power u/s 254(2) to review its own order. The power vested with the Tribunal relates to the mistake apparent on record, and such mistake apparent on record means that the mistake must be apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal, after considering the grounds raised in appeal, decided the appeal on merits. The Tribunal cannot review its own order in the garb of power vested u/s 254(2) of the Act. In our opinion, there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal. We accordingly dismiss the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Petition filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 13 th day of January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 13 th January, 2022. DOC आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Aurangabad. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.