INCOME TAX OFICER WARD-1(5), JALANDHAR V. SHRI GAURAV JOSHI, JALANDHAR

MA 14/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4468 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. No. 14/Asr/2019 (Arising out of ITA No. 274/Asr/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax officer, Ward-1(5), Jalandhar Vs. Sh. Gaurav Joshi C/o Sh. Ashray Sarna, Adv. 18, Vakil Building, Model Town Road, Jalandhar [PAN: AMJPJ 3603P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Respondent by: None Date of Hearing: 22.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This miscellaneous application was filed by the Revenue for recalling the order of the Tribunal dated 16.01.2019 in ITA No. 274/Asr/2018 for assessment year 2010-11. 2. In the present application, the department has contended that the ITAT has quashed the appellate order mainly on the ground that the MA No. 14/Asr/2019 ITO v. Gaurav Joshi 2 reasons recorded by the AO were not emerged from the assessment record. However, reasons were recorded in this case by ITO, Ward-1(5), Ludhiana & later on, the case was transferred to the Assessing Officer who has passed the assessment order. 3. The Tribunal has dealt with the legal issue at length by reproducing the reasons recorded by the AO, vide para 4 of the ITAT order, by addressing the contentions of both the sides, vide para 8, 9, and 10 of the ITAT order and by following the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Atlas Cycle Industries, decided the issue. 4. It is pertinent to mention that in the instant case, the Tribunal has passed a detailed order holding that the AO recorded the reasons were not found to exist on the record, therefore, the reassessment framed and deserved to be quashed. Under the circumstances, recalling of the tribunal order would amount to review of the order passed by the Tribunal which is not within the power Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the recent Judgement of “Commissioner of Income-tax (IT-4), Mumbai vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.”, [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) held that while considering application under section MA No. 14/Asr/2019 ITO v. Gaurav Joshi 3 254(2), Tribunal was not required to re-visit its original order and go in details on merits and completely recall its order as powers under provision of section 254(2) were only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from record. In our view, there is no apparent from record, and as such the miscellaneous application of the assessee is required to be rejected. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.05.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member Date: 06.05.2022 *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order