ACIT, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad V. Sri Kantilal Agarwal, Hyderabad

MA 134/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2316 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B RAMA KRISHNA
• Assessee Lawyers: B SAI PRASAD
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 134/HYD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 250/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, APPLICANT CIRCLE 18(1), HYDERABAD VS. SRI KANTILAL AGARWAL, RESP ONDENT HYDERABAD. PAN AAAPA 3053K APPLICANT BY : SHRI B. RAMAKRISHNA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAI PRASAD DATE OF HEARING : 19/09/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/09/2014 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, A.M.: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE DEPARTMENT FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE SUPPOSED TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 250/HYD/2012 DATED 28/03/2014. 2. AS PER THE AVERMENT MADE IN THE M.A. AND AS CON TENDED BY THE LEARNED DR, WHILE DECIDING THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA NO. 250/HYD/2012, THE ITAT HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE F OLLOWING GROUNDS RAISED IN THE SAID APPEAL: 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON ONLY ONE DOCUMENT AND IGNORING THE SEIZURE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN ANNE XURE-MIP/A/2 WHICH CONTAINS FULL DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTION RELA TED TO ACQUISITION OF M/S MAA SACHIYA IRON (P) LTD., BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LIA BILITIES OF MAA SACHIYA SPONGE IRON (P) LTD., WHICH WERE DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUISITION OF M/S MAA SACHIYA SPONGE I RON (P) LTD. 3. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LEARNED DR SPECIFICALLY DRE W OUR ATTENTION TO PARAS 41 TO 46 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. M.A. NO. 134/HYD/14 SRI KANTILAL AGARWAL 2 4. THE LEARNED AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSING THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUN D NOS. 2 & 3 BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DEC IDING ASSESSEES GROUND NO. 2 IN CROSS APPEAL REGISTERED AS ITA NO. 262/HYD/2012, HENCE, THERE IS NO NECESSITY OF DECIDING THE DEPART MENTS GROUNDS AS THEY HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THOUGH, IT MAY BE A FACT T HAT WHILE DECIDING GROUND NOS. 2 TO 5 OF ASSESSEES CROSS APPEAL IN IT A NO. 262/HYD/2012, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, WHICH ALSO A ROSE IN DEPARTMENTS GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 AS RAISED IN ITA NO. 250/HYD/2014 , BUT, WHILE DISMISSING THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL BY INADVERTENCE HAS FAILED TO RECORD ANY FINDING IN RESPECT OF THE AFOR ESAID TWO GROUNDS. HENCE, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ENVISAGED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, REC ALL THE ORDER DATED 28/03/2014 PASSED IN ITA NO. 250/HYD/2012 FOR THE L IMITED PURPOSE OF RECORDING THE FINDING WITH REGARD TO GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO POST THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 27/01/2014. AS BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED IN TH E OPEN COURT ABOUT THE DATE OF HEARING, NO SEPARATE NOTICE NEED TO BE SENT TO THE PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT, M.A. FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS A LLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.09.2014 SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 19/09/2014. KV M.A. NO. 134/HYD/14 SRI KANTILAL AGARWAL 3 COPY TO:- 1) SRI KANTILAL AGARWAL, 21-2-,631, HYDERABAD. 2) ACIT, CIRCLE 18(1), HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A)-VII, HYDERABAD 4) THE CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A .T., HYDERABAD.