Sh. Navraj Singh L/H, Nawanshahr V. The Income tax Officer, Nawanshahr

MA 116/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1602 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. M.A.NOS.116 & 117(ASR)/2013 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NOS.352 & 353(ASR)/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1999-2000 & 2000-01) SHRI SURJIT SINGH THROUGH VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFI CER, L/H SH. NAVRAJ SINGH, NAWANSHAHR. NAWANSHAHR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND M.A.NO.118(ASR)/2013 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.354(ASR)/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01) SHRI NAVRAJ SINGH, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NAWANSHAHR. NAWANSHAHR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY: SHRI J.S. BHASIN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH.MAHAVIR SINGH, DR. DATE OF HEARING : 13/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24/02/2014 ORDER PER BENCH; THESE THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES FOR RECALLING THE CONSOLIDATE D ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MA NOS. 116 TO 118(ASR)/2013 2 DATED 24.11.2009 PASSED IN ITA NOS. 352, 353 & 354( ASR)/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 & 2000-01. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO CIT(A), THE FIRST SIX GROUNDS OF APP EAL REMAINED UNHEARD AND UNDECIDED, THOUGH IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSES STOOD ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE LD. CIT(A), J ALANDHAR, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER AFRESH ON 07.08.2013 HAS TAKEN ADVERSE NO TE OF THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND REAFFIRMED THE ADDITIONS ON OTHER ISSUES FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY HIS PREDECESSOR. THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN DISPUTE BY FILING FRESH APPEALS BEFORE T HIS BENCH ON 30.10.2013 I.E. IN ITA NOS. 639, 640 & 641(ASR)/2013 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEARS 1999- 2000 & 2000-01 BY THE PRESENT ASSESSES. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PR ESENT PETITION, THE ASSESSEE HAS REPRODUCED THE SAID SIX GROUNDS OF AP PEAL WHICH REMAINED UNDECIDED AND REPRODUCED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION AT PARA-3 PAGE 2. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAID OMISSION HAS CAUSED P REJUDICE TO THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS, THIS OMISSION HAS BEEN AVAILED OF BY T HE LD. CIT(A), IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS TO CONFIRM, WITH UTMOST EASE, TH E ADDITIONS AS WERE MADE BY HIS PREDECESSOR. MA NOS. 116 TO 118(ASR)/2013 3 2.2. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REQUESTED IN THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION THAT THE OMISSION TO DEAL WITH THE ABOVE SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BEING AN ERROR APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH DA TED 24.11.2009 IS CAPABLE OF RECTIFICATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECT ION 254(2). THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED THAT THE SAID ORDER OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, BE RECALLED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE SAID SIX GROUNDS O F APPEAL AND ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER MAY KINDLY BE PASSED AFTER HEARIN G THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE. 3. THE LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE RE QUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ESPECIALLY ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL DATED 24.11.2009 PASSED BY THIS BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MI STAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 24.11.2009, WHICH IS BONA FID E. IN OTHER WORDS, THE BENCH HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO TH E PARTIES, MEANING THEREBY THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPE ALS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES. BUT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT PROPERLY UNDERSOOD THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THIS BENCH, WHICH WE FEEL ARE N OT VERY MUCH CLEAR AND HAS CAUSED MISTAKE AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE MA NOS. 116 TO 118(ASR)/2013 4 ACCEPT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE MADE IN THE PR ESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IN BROADER SENSE AND ALLOW THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIONS BY RECALLING OUR ORDER DATED 24.11.2009 TO DECIDE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE MAIN APPEALS AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER HEARING BOT H THE PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY, ALL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE ALL OWED AND THE MAIN APPEALS IN ITA NOS. 352 TO 354(ASR)/2009 FIXED FOR HEARING TODAY ITSELF I.E. ON 13.02.2014 WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSES ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24TH FEBRUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH.SURJIT SINGH THROUGH L/H NAVRAJ SI NGH (II) SH.NAVRAJ SINGH, NAWANSHHAR. 2. THE ITO, NAWANSHAHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), JLR. 4. THE CIT,JLR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR MA NOS. 116 TO 118(ASR)/2013 5