Sri. K.R. Kaviraj, Bellary V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bellary

MA 119/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9949 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P V PRADEEP KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: GURUNATHAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Tax effect

Judgement Text

MP.119 & 120/BANG/2018 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISC.PETITION NOS.119 &120/BANG/2018 (IN I.T.A NOS.362 & 365/BANG/2016) (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 & 2011-12) SHRI. K. R. KAVIRAJ, PROP : M/S. LAKSHMI MINERALS, NAHAR COMPLEX, DAM ROAD, HOSPET .. APPLICANT PAN : ALGPK6521K V. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, BELLARY .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. GURUNATHAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : DR. P. V. PRADEEP KUMAR, ADDL. CIT HEARD ON : 07.12.2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 07.12.2018 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE, SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE THAT HAS CREPT IN THE COMM ON ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, DT.26.12.2017. MP.119 & 120/BANG/2018 PAGE - 2 MP.119/BANG/2018 A. Y. 2008-09 : 02. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THA T AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE ORDER ON 26.12.2017, THE CBDT HAD AL READY ISSUED DIRECTION FOR WITHDRAWING THE APPEALS WHERE THE TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.10 LAKHS. HE RELIED UPON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015. IT WA S ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE T AX DEMAND IS RS.7,08,773/- AND THEREFORE THE SAME WAS BELOW THE TAX EFFECT REQUISITE TO CONTINUE THE APPEAL. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CONTINUATION OF THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND PASSI NG OF THE ORDER BY THE BENCH ON AN APPEAL WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE WITHDRAW N, IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD, AS THE APPEAL WAS ADJUDICATED P ASSED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 03. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIES UPON THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 04. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPEAL WAS PREF ERRED BY THE REVENUE AND THE TAX EFFECT WAS ONLY RS.7,08,773/- AND ADMIT TEDLY THE TAX EFFECT FOR CONTINUING THE APPEAL AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.2 1/2015 (SUPRA) WAS RS.10 LAKHS. THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS REQUIRED TO BE WITHDRAWN BY THE REVENUE AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.362 /BANG/2016 WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE WE ARE CONVINCED THAT IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEREFORE WE AR E OF THE OPINION THAT THE DECISION PASSED IN ITA NO.362/BANG/2016 IS TO BE WI THDRAWN AND DISMISSED. MP.119 & 120/BANG/2018 PAGE - 3 05. HOWEVER WE MAY MENTION HERE THAT A COMMON ORDER WAS PASSED FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2012-13 SINCE T HE FACTS INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS WERE IDENTICAL. THEREFORE, THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE IN THE OUTCOME OF THE RESULTS FOR THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 2012-13. 06. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE MP OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A Y 2008-09 IS ALLOWED. MP.120/BANG/2018 A. Y. 2011-12 : 07. THIS MP PERTAINS TO ITA.365/BANG/2016, FOR A. Y . 2011-12, WHEREIN IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT DECIDED THE GROUND NOS.7 & 8 IN THE REVENUES APPEAL. IT WAS A LSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PREJUDICED FOR NON-ADJUDICATION OF THES E GROUNDS BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE HAS FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO TH E TRIBUNAL BY VIRTUE OF WHICH CROSS OBJECTION WAS ALSO DECIDED. 08. PER CONTRA THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AP PEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IF AT ALL THERE WAS NO GRIEVANCE THEN I T COULD HAVE BEEN TO THE REVENUE AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, NO MP IS FILED BY THE REVENUE SEEKING ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NOS.7 AND 8. 09. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AGGRIEVE D BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL BY NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND NOS. 7 & 8 AS T HESE WERE THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. IN VIEW THEREOF WE DO NOT F IND ANY MERIT IN THE MP FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. MP.119 & 120/BANG/2018 PAGE - 4 10. FURTHER WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF NOT PRESSED THE CROSS OBJECTIONS 2 TO 6 AS MENTIONED BY THE TRI BUNAL IN PARA 12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DUE TO THIS ALSO WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT. THEREFORE THIS MP IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, MP.119/BANG/2018 IS ALLOWED AND MP.120/BANG/2018 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER BENGALURU DATED : 07.12.2018 MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.