SHRI. Rakesh Kumar, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

MA 12/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6521 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV GUBGOTRA LD
• Keywords: Search and seizure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A NO.12(ASR)/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.182(ASR)/2017) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2013- 14 SH. RAKESH KUMAR (PROP.) M/S. SHREE GANESH MARBLE JALANDHAR PAN:AHJPK8148D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAJEEV GUBGOTRA (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 04.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.05.2018 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 17.1 1.2017. 2. THE ASSESSEE BY MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO.182(ASR)/2017 RELEVANT TO THE ASST. YEAR:2013-1 4 WAS DISPOSED OFF BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 17.1 1.2017. IN THE ORDER, THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT HAS BEEN MENTIO NED AS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(C), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RAID HE AD, M.A.NO.12/ASR/2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) (ARISING OU T OF ITA NO.182(ASR)/2017) SH. RAKESH KUMAR, JALANDHAR VS. ITO 2 JAMMU, (J&K) INSTEAD OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3) , JALANDHAR (PUNJAB) WHICH REQUIRES TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 14.01.2016 AND THE ORDER DATED 01.02.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A)-1, JALANDHAR AS WELL AS FORM NO.36, WHERE THE RESPONDENT NAME HAS BEEN WRITTEN AS INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD-1(3), JA LANDAHR (PUNJAB), HOWEVER, IN THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2017 PA SSED BY THE ITAT BENCH AT AMRITSAR, THE RESPONDENT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(C), RAID HEAD, JAMMU, (J&K ) WHICH ACCORDING TO OUR MIND SEEMS TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE OCCURR ED WHILE TYPING THE ORDER. EVEN WE REALIZED THAT ON THE LAST PAGE OF THE ORDER IN SERIAL NO.5 OF THE COLUMN COPY FORWARDED TO WRITTEN AS DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, MUMBAI IN HINDI A ND AMRITSAR IN ENGLISH WHICH ALSO REQUIRES TO BE RECTIFIED. HENCE, WE ORDER THAT THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT BE REA D AS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JALANDHAR (PUNJAB) A ND IN SERIAL NO.5 (COPY FORWARDED TO), THE SAME BE READ AS DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, AMRITSAR INSTEAD OF MUMBAI IN HINDI. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. M.A.NO.12/ASR/2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) (ARISING OU T OF ITA NO.182(ASR)/2017) SH. RAKESH KUMAR, JALANDHAR VS. ITO 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIELD BY T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.05.2018. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED: 21.05.2018 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) SH. RAKESH KUMAR, JALANDHAR (2) THE ITO, JALANDHAR (3) THE CIT(A), JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER