DATTA PRASAD SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LTD, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER -26(3)(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

MA 122/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3561 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 122/Mum./2022 IN ITA No. 6029/Mum./2019 (Assessment Year : 2011–12) Datta Prasad Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. Road no.108 to 110, 1 st Floor Deion Shelters CHSL, S.G. Barve Road Kurla (East), Mumbai 400 024 PAN – AABAS6993E ................ Applicant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–26(3)(2), Mumbai ................ Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vipul Joshi Revenue by : Ms. Vranda U. Matkari, Sr. AR Date of Hearing – 08.07.2022 Date of Order – 13/07/2022 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") against the order dated 08/09/2021, passed by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal under section 254(1) of the Act, for the assessment year 2011–12. Datta Prasad Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. M.A. No.122/Mum./2022 Page | 2 2. In the present Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has sought rectification / clarification in respect of the directions issued by the Co– ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide Para–12 of the aforesaid order dated 08/09/2021. In this regard, however, the learned A.R. submitted that the rectification / clarification is required as the Assessing Officer is not having the clarity as to how to implement the directions issued by the Tribunal and, therefore, no order has been passed pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal. 3. On the other hand, the learned D.R. submitted that there is no ambiguity and no error insofar as the directions issued by the Tribunal in Para–12 of the order is concerned. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, vide aforesaid order in Para–12 observed as under:– “12. As regards the correction of status of the assessee from firm to AOP, the Assessing Officer is directed to rectify the same after verifying all relevant facts.” 5. Thus, it is evident that the Assessing Officer was directed to rectify the status of the assessee from “Firm” to “AOP” after verifying all the relevant facts. The Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, vide aforesaid direction, did not confine the examination by the Assessing Officer to any particular fact. Thus, it is open to the Assessing Officer to comply with the Datta Prasad Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd. M.A. No.122/Mum./2022 Page | 3 direction in such manner, as it deemed fit, and after verification of all relevant facts. Both the parties before us fairly agreed that there is no error insofar as the directions issued by the Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Para–12. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. 6. In the result, Miscellaneous Application by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13/07/2022 Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 13/07/2022 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The CIT(A); (4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned; (5) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; (6) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai