M/s Aarti Steels Limited, Ludhiana V. DCIT, C-4, Ludhiana

MA 129/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6918 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 129/CHD/2018 (IN ITA NO. 1523/CHD/2017) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) M/S AARTI STEELS LTD. VS. THE DCIT G.T. ROAD, MILLER GANJ CIRCLE-4 LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN: AABCA4455D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. SUBHASH AGGARWAL DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. CHANDRAKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 21/12/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/03/2019 O R D E R PER DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, A.M . THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PLEADING THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDE R DT. 24/04/2018 OF THIS TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO. 1523/CHD/2017. IT HAS BEEN PLEADE D THAT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO MAT CREDIT AFTER INCLUDING SURCHARGE AND EDUCATION CESS, THOUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF T HE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION HOWEVER THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPO N THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAVE ESCAPED THE INTENTION OF THE BENCH. IT HAS BEEN FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BY THE DR ON 28/02/2018 SUBS EQUENT TO THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 26/02/2018. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVE N OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE DR. THAT THE CASE LAW IN THE CA SE OF RICHA GLOBAL EXPORTS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT OF DELHI HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE DR IS N OT APPLICABLE AS THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. SRINIVASAN (1972) 83 ITR 346(SC). IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT A MI STAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDER DT. 24/04/2018 OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE P ARTIES. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BY THE LD. DR SUBSEQUENT TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE SAME. IN V IEW OF THIS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDER DT. 24/04/2018 OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME IS THEREFORE RECALLED. THE APPEAL / MATTER IS DIRECTE D TO BE FIXED FOR HEARING A FRESH IN REGULAR COURSE, PARTIES BE INFORMED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (DR. B.R.R . KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 01/03/2019 AG COPY TO: 1.THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR