, , , , C, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, C BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + )* + )* + )* + ) ' ) ' ) ' ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA NO.116/AHD/2012 IN ITA NO.251/AHD/2010 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2006-2007] DCIT, CIR.1 SURAT. /VS. M/S.D.G. PATEL CONSTRUCTION P. LTD. A/1, SURYAPUR SOCIETY OPP: RUSHAB TOWER RANDER ROAD, SURAT. ( (( (-. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) + 1 2 )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAHUL KUMAR 4& 1 2 )/ ASSESSEE BY : MS.URVASHI SHODHAN 5 1 &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 27 TH JULY, 2012 678 1 &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 TH JULY, 2012 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE REVENUES APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FO R THE A.Y.2006- 2007 IN ITA NO.251/AHD/2010 DATED 1-6-2012. MA NO.116/AHD/2012 IN ITA NO.251/AHD/2010 -2- 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN FIXED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR HEARING ON 29-8-2012. SHE SUBMITT ED THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE REVENUES APPEAL BY MISTAKE COULD NOT POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARISING OUT OF THE SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE SAME ASSESSMEN T YEAR IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND IT HAS RESULTED IN MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. P.V. VIJAY INT. UD YOG, 152 ITR 111 (SC) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT MISTAKE IN CLUBBING TH E TWO APPEALS IS A MISTAKE OF THE COURT. SHE SUBMITTED THAT PUNE TRIB UNAL IN MA NOS.33 TO 37/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 23-3-2011 HAS FOLL OWED THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA) AND HAS IN SIM ILAR FACTS RECALLED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR ARISING OUT O F THE SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS FIXED SEPARATELY BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR 29 TH AUGUST, 2012 AND THEREFORE THE REVENUES APPEAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IN THIS CASE. FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. P.V. VIJAY INT. UDYOG (SUPRA) AND WE BEING IN AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN MA NO.33 TO 37 /PN/2011 CITED MA NO.116/AHD/2012 IN ITA NO.251/AHD/2010 -3- (SUPRA), RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN REVENU ES APPEAL FOR A.Y.2006-2007 IN ITA NO.251/AHD/2010 ORDER DATED 1- 6-2012 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FIXED ON 29-8-2012 SO THAT BOTH T HE CROSS APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR ARISING OUT OF THE SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE HEAR D AND DISPOSED OF TOGETHER. WE ARE NOT MAKING ANY COMMENT ON THE MER IT OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEALS OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. W E DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MA PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD