ASHOK P. SHAH, V. ACIT - 22(2),

MA 116/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5629 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJGURU M V
• Assessee Lawyers: V P KOTHARIAR

Judgement Text

, , , , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -ABENCH MUMBAI , , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AMA RJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER / MA NO.116/MUM/2016 (ARISING OUT OF / ITA NO.2163/MUM/2011) / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07) SHRI ASHOK P. SHAH C/O. FRIENDSHIP, 112, ARUN BAZAR, STATION ROAD, SANTACRUZ(W),MUMBAI-400 054. PAN:ALJPS 3432 L VS. ACIT-CIRCLE-22(2) MUMBAI. ( /APPLICANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REV ENUE BY: SHRI RAJGURU M.V.-DR ASS ESSEE BY: SHRI V.P. KOTHARI-AR / DATE OF HEARING: 24.03. 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.04.2017 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) , / PER RAJENDRA A.M. - VIDE ITS APPLICATION,DATED 24.05.16,THE ASSESSEE H AS STATED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN MISTAKES IN ORDER OF TRIBUNAL,DATED 29.02.16,THAT SAME WERE TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT.IN HIS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE H AS STATED THAT WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO.4 THE TRIBUNAL HAD MENTIONED THE AMOUNT OF STAMP DUTY PAYABLE AT RS.2.50 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS. 25 LAKHS,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID A ADDITIONAL S UM OF RS.24.00 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY IN ADDITION TO RS.25 LAKHS PAID ALREADY,THAT W HILE DECIDING THE APPEAL THE ISSUE WAS NOT DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL,THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD RELIED UPON THE CASE OF CHANDRESH P.SHAH WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE,THAT THE FACTS OF THE THAT CASE WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND WERE NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT IN T HAT MATTER THE ISSUE WAS HEAD OF THE INCOME UNDER WHICH INCOME WAS TO BE ASSESSED I.E. UNDER TH E HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT DEALT WITH ISSUE RAISED BY HIM. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION AND STATED THAT ISSUE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) STATED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN MENTIONING THE AMOUNT OF STAMP DUTY. THE ISSUE WAS OF ABOUT RS.25.00 LAKHS AND NOT RS.2.5 LAKHS AS CLAIMED IN T HE APPLICATION.WE ALSO FIND THAT GROUND MA/116/M/16-ASHOKP.SHAH 2 NO.4 REMAINED UNADJUDUCATED, I.E. THE MAIN ISSUE WA S NOT DEALT WITH.THEREFORE, WE RECALL OUR ORDER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DECIDING GROUND NO .4 AGAIN.REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASE BEFORE THE REGULAR BENCH FOR DECIDING GROUND N O.4 ONLY. AS A RESULT MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED . . ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH APRIL, 2017. 26 , 2017 SD/- S D/- ( / AMARJIT SINGH ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 26 . 04 . .2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.