Gramina Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Bhatkal V. Income Tax Officer, Ward - , Karwar

MA 12/PAN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6368 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH:: PANAJI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, HON. VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, HON. JUDICIAL MEMBER (Through virtual hearing) M.A.No. 12/PAN/2023 (Arising out of ITA No.214/PAN/2019) (A.Y. 2016-17) M/s. Gramina Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha Co-op. Society, Belake, Bhatkal-581320 PAN: AAAAG 1779 P vs ITO, Ward-1, Karwar. Applicant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Ravish Rao, CA Revenue by : Shri N. Shrikanth, DR Date of hearing : 10/11/2023 Date of pronouncement : 16/11/2023 ORDER Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This Misc. Application preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of this Tribunal in ITA No. 214/PAN/2019, dated 19/07/2023. 2. The first contention raised in this Misc. Application is that the counsel for the assessee was present on the date of hearing before the Tribunal. However, we find from the impugned order of the Tribunal, none was present for the assessee and accordingly there is no name of the appearing counsel for the assessee mentioned in the said order. When it is stated that none had appeared for the assessee before the Tribunal at the time of original hearing, then at this stage of Misc. Application hearing, it cannot be said that the Tribunal had wrongly MA No.12/PAN/2023 M/s. Gramina Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamith Co-op Society 2 noted so especially for the fact that the impugned order of the Tribunal had been passed by a different combination. The counsel also could not corroborate his statement regarding his presence on the day of hearing through any other documentary evidence. We accordingly, go with the impugned order of the Tribunal and the fact that none appeared for the assessee remains unaltered and unchanged. This part of the Misc. Application is dismissed as devoid of any merit. 3. The next ground raised in this Misc. Application is that there is a mistake in the name of the assessee appearing in the cause-title of the order where the name of the assessee has been written as “Grameena Vyvasaya Sahakari Bank Limited, Post Jali, Bhatkal Uttara Kannada District, State of Karnataka-581 320” whereas the correct name should be “M/s. Gramina Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha Co-operative Society, Belake, Bhatkar-581 320”. We correct the name of the assessee as appearing in the cause-title and now it will be read as “M/s. Gramina Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha Co- operative Society, Belake, Bhatkar-581 320”. This part of the Misc. Application stands allowed. 4. The third mistake apparent from record pointed out is that in the order of the Tribunal, PAN of the assessee has not been mentioned which is as under:- PAN – AAAAG 1779 P MA No.12/PAN/2023 M/s. Gramina Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamith Co-op Society 3 We also direct inclusion of this PAN in the cause-title of the Tribunal order. Therefore, these two contentions are allowed. Resultantly, the name of the assessee is changed to be read as per foregoing para along with PAN which is now included in the cause-title of the Tribunal order. That, apart, remaining order of the Tribunal, remains unchanged and unaltered. 5. In the result, Misc. Application filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open Court on 16 th November, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. SYAL) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 16 th November, 2023 vr/- Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. The DR, ITAT, Panaji Bench, Panaji. 5. Guard File. By Order // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.