Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(2). Belgaum., Belgaum V. Sri Basetteppa B. Badami., Belgaum

MA 13/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4593 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND S MARATHE
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO. 1 3/PAN/2015 ( ITA NO S . 184 TO 186 /PN J /201 4 ) (ASST. YEAR S : 2006 - 07 , 2008 - 09 & 20 1 0 - 1 1 ) ITO, WARD - 1(3), BELAGAVI. VS. SRI BASETTEPPA B. BADAMI, PROP. : M/S. BELGAUM PIPES & TUBES, OLD P.B.ROAD, CANTONMENT COMPLEX, BELGAUM. PAN NO. ABDPB 5252 T (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD VAIDYA ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ANAND S. MARATHE - DR DATE OF HEARING : 22 / 0 7 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 / 0 7 /201 6 . O R D E R PER NARENDRA S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS A MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 184 TO 186/PNJ/2014 , DATED 01/10/2014 . 2. SHRI ANAND S. MARATHE, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SHRI PRAMOD VAIDYA, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE RE VENUES APPEAL ON THE GROUND TH A T THE REVENUE HAD NOT COME IN APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005 - 06 & 2007 - 08. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS 2 M.ANO. 1 3/PAN/2015 ( ITA NO S . 184 - 186 /P NJ /201 4 ) LIABLE TO BE RECALLED , INSOFAR AS THE TAX EFFECT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005 - 06 & 2007 - 08 WAS LOW AND EVEN THOUGH, THE DECISION WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN PRINCIPLE . D UE TO LOW TAX EFFECT, T HE APPEAL HAD NOT BEEN FILED. 4 . IN REPLY, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN RESPECT OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN FACT, THE REVENUE IN MA HAS ADMITTED THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN FILED ANY APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005 - 06 & 2007 - 08. ONCE, THE CLOSING BALANCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005 - 06 & 2007 - 08 ARE ACCEPTED, THEN OBVIOUSLY THE OPENING BALANCE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS CANNOT BE TINKERED WITH . IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , AS NO ERROR HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE MA FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON FRIDAY , THE 2 2 ND DAY OF JULY , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 2 2 ND JU LY , 201 6 . VR/ - 3 M.ANO. 1 3/PAN/2015 ( ITA NO S . 184 - 186 /P NJ /201 4 ) COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI