The ITO, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad V. Anand Credit Ltd., Ahmedabad

MA 139/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4615 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.139/AHD/2013 IN ./ IT(SS)A.NO.4443/AHD/1996 BLOCK PERIOD : 11/11/1993 TO 26/09/1995 ITO, WARD-1(2) AHMEDABAD. VS ANAND CREDIT LTD. 2, KRISHNA APARTMENT AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASEEM THAKKAR, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 05/08/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05/08/2016 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AT THE IN STANCE OF THE REVENUE POINTING OUT APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.2.2010. 2. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 25.1.2007. THE ASSESSEE HAS, VI DE ITS LETTER DATED 6.1.2003 RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. WHEN THE TRIBU NAL HAS DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL, IT FAILED TO ADJUDICATE ADDITIONAL GROUND O F APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE MOVED MISC. APP LICATION BEARING MA NO.139/AHD/2013 2 NO.264/AHD/2009. THIS APPLICATION WAS ALLOWED BY T HE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 22.2.2010. IN THE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RE CORDED THAT THE LD.DR HAS NO OBJECTION, IF THE MA OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, AN D ADDITIONAL GROUND IS RESTORED TO BE ADJUDICATED ON MERIT. HOWEVER, BY WA Y OF PRESENT MA, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE, THOUGH NOT DISCERNIBLE SP ECIFICALLY, BUT IMPLIEDLY THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT GIVEN SUCH CONSENT AND THE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE NOT CONSIDERED ADMISSIBILITY OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IN THE PROCEEDING SET IN MOTION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ROUND OF LITIGATIO N, ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL WAS REMAINED TO BE DECIDED. IT WAS AN APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECTIFIED THIS APPARENT ERROR BY RESTORING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION. EVEN IF THE LD. DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVES CONSENT WAS NOT RECORDED, THEN ALS O NON-ADJUDICATION OF ANY GROUND RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE AN APPAR ENT ERROR AND THE TRIBUNAL WOULD HAVE PASSED THE SAME ORDER. THE MISC. APPLIC ATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS MISCONCEIVED ONE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ER ROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, MA OF THE REVENUE IS REJECT ED. 4. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES MA IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 05/08/2016