M/s Royal Exports, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

MA 13/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1620 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: STATPAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SIMRAN MEHTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES NEW DELHI (FRIDAY) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI J.S. REDDY M.A. NO. 13/DEL/2012 ( IN ITA NO. 721/DEL/2009) A.YR. 2005-06 M/S ROYAL EXPORTS VS. ACIT CEN. CIRCLE-16, 2719, BANK STREET, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN/GIR NO. AADFR 6282 N ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SIMRAN MEHTA ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI STATPAL SINGH SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M: : THIS IS ASSESSEES MISC. APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, CONTENDING THAT ITAT ORDER DATED 20-12-2010 IN ITA NO. 721/DEL/2009. SUFFERS FROM FOLLOWING MISTAKES APPAR ENT FROM THE RECORD: 1. THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF WITHOUT CO NSIDERING THE APPLICATION DATED 20-12-2010 MOVED BY THE APPEL LANT WHEREBY IT REQUESTED FOR CONSOLIDATION OF THE APPEA L FOR A.Y. 2005-06 WITH THE APPEAL FOR AY 2004-05. THERE WAS I N FACT NO INDICATION TO THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WH O WAS PRESENT IN THE COURT AS TO THE FATE OF THE AID APPLICATION OR A MENTION THEREOF IN THE ORDER. 2. THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR AY 2004-05 IN ITA NO. 730/DEL/2010 DATED 12-7-2010 FIL ED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR CONSOLIDATION DATED 20-12- 2010 WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 2 3. THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT NOTE THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY (SUPRA ) HAD BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE HEARING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR THE AY 2004-05 AND THE MATTE R WAS REMITTED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAID JUDGMENT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED ON 20-12- 2010. THE PERUSAL OF RECORD SHOWS THAT ON 22-12-2010 FOLLOWING REQUEST W AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL: SUB: REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT IN THE CASE OF M/S ROYAL EXPORTS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THEN THIS CA SE WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR 27/10/10 WHEN DETAILED SUBMISSION S WERE FILED BUT ADJOURNED FOR APRIL 2011. THE POINT INVOLVED IN BOTH THE YEARS IS THE SAME I.E. DEDUCTION U/S 10B. IT IS THE REFORE, REQUESTED THAT BOTH THE APPEALS MAY KINDLY BE DIREC TED TO BE CONSOLIDATED. A COPY OF NOTICE FOR 27/10/10 AND ALS O COPY OF HIGH COURT ORDER IS ALSO ENCLOSED. WE SHALL BE HIGH LY GRATEFUL IF BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED TO BE CONSOLIDATED . 3. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR CONSOLIDATION OF APPEALS. THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE APPEALS CAN BE DO NE BY THE HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT OF ITAT . THE BENCH INADVERTENTLY TOOK IT AS SIMPLE APPLICATION OF ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS REJECTED. IN OUR CONSIDERED V IEW, THIS AMOUNTS TO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD INASMUCH AS WHEN A SSESSEE MAKES A PRAYER 3 FOR CONSOLIDATION OF APPEALS, IT IS TO BE PUT UP BE FORE HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FRO M THE RECORD WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE RECA LL THE IMPUGNED ORDER, TO BE REFIXED IN REGULAR COURSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES M.A. IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14-03-2014. SD/- SD/- ( J.S. REDDY ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14-03-2014. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR