Gangadhar Narsingdas Agrawal (HUF), Margao V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji., Panaji

MA 14/PAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4586 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NATARAJ S
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK A KULKARNI
• Section: 260A; 2; 15

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.NOS. 13 TO 15/PAN/2016 ( ITA NO S . 153 TO 155 & 156 /P NJ/2008) (ASST. YEAR S : 200 4 - 0 5 TO 2006 - 07 ) GANGADHAR NARSINGDAS AGRAWAL (HUF), ANAND BHAVAN, OLD STATION ROAD, MARGAO, GOA . VS. A CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI GOA. PAN NO. AABHG 4804 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHOK A. KULKARNI ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI NATARAJ S. - DR DATE OF HEARING : 28 / 0 6 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 / 0 6 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE THREE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENC H OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 153 TO 155 & 156 /PNJ/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 - 05, 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 RESPECTIVELY , DATED 08/07/2015 . 2. SHRI ASHOK A. KULKARNI, ADV OCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI NATARAJ S. , DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COO R DINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAD IN ITS ORDER DATED 08/07/2015 , RESTORED THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL S TO THE FILE OF THE 2 MA NO S . 13 - 15 /P A N/201 6 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR RE - ADJUDICATION . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA IN TAX APPEAL NOS. 20, 21, 24 & 27/2012 , VIDE ORDER DATED 26/03/2012 , HAD RESTORED THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ADJUDICATING ON MERITS , A S THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT GIVEN ANY CLEAR AND SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF T H E I S S U E S R A I S E D B E F O R E T H E HONBLE HIGH COURT . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS WERE NOT PROPERLY PLACED NOR ASSIMILATED , HAD RESTORED A L L THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR RE - ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ALL THE ISSUES THAT WERE ADJUDICATED IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WERE NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ONLY SUCH ISSUES , WHICH WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WERE LIABLE TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) . I NSOFAR AS , THE ISSUES WHICH WERE NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT , T H E Y HAD ATTAINED FINALITY . 4 . IN REPLY , DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL . 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS . A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 260A CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT IS ONLY ISSUES , ON WHICH THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION S OF LAW , WHICH ARE RAISED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ALL ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN RAISED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT . IN THESE CIRCUMSTA N CES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ONLY SUCH ISSUES WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT A N D T H A T W H I C H HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE TRIBUNAL FOR RE - ADJUD I CATION AND IT IS ONLY SUCH ISSUES , WH ICH HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE TRIBUNAL WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR RE - ADJUD I CATION AFTER ASSIMILATING ALL THE FACTS AND AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE 3 MA NO S . 13 - 15 /P A N/201 6 OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. THIS BEING SO, THE O R DER OF THE TRIBUNAL STANDS MODIFIED AND IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUES WHICH HA VE BEEN RAISED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND WHICH HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE TRIBUNAL ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR RE - ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON TUESDAY , THE 28 TH DAY OF JUNE , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH JUNE , 201 6 . VR/ - 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 .