Late Hoorjahan Begum, Rep by Sri Syed Afsar Hasan(son) and Sri Syed Baqar Hasan (son), Hyderabad Hyderabad, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward -9(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad

MA 15/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2797 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO.13/HYD/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.1386/HYD/2014 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 MR. SYED AFSAR HASAN HYDERABAD PAN AAMPH2176A VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9 (2), HYDERABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) M.A.NO.14/HYD/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.1387/HYD/2014 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 MR. SYED BAQAR HASAN HYDERABAD PAN AAIPH8713R VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9 (2), HYDERABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) M.A.NO.15/HYD/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.1388/HYD/2014 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 LATE SMT. HOORJAHAN BEGUM, HYDERABAD. REPTD. BY MR. SYED AFSAR HASAN (SON) AND MR. SYED BAQAR HASAN (SON) HYDERABAD PAN ACVPB8168M VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9 (2), HYDERABAD. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEES : MR. D.V. ANJANEYULU FOR REVENUE : MR. RAJAT MITRA DATE OF HEARING : 13.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.03.2015 2 M.A.NO.13, 14 & 15/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1386, 1387 & 1388/HYD/2014 MR. SYED AFSAR HASAN, MR. SYED BAQAR HASAN ETC., HYDERABAD. ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE CL AIMED TO HAVE CREPT INTO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14. 01.2015 PASSED IN ITA.NO.1386, 1387 & 1388/HYD/2014 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-2007. 2. THE BASIC CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CERTAIN DECISIONS CITED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APP EAL WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGN ED ORDER. THEREFORE, IT IS SUBMITTED, NON-CONSIDERATION OF TH OSE DECISIONS CITED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING HAS MADE THE ORDER E RRONEOUS. 3. THE LEARNED D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSING TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAS 13 AND 17 OF THE ORDER WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WERE CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREAFTER, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED. THEREFORE, THERE BEING NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE APPLICATIO NS SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. AS CAN BE SEEN THE SPECIFIC CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, IS THE DECISIO NS OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SM T. THRESSIAMMA ABRAHAM (1997) 227 ITR 802 AND THAT OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ADDL. CIT VS. GLAD INVESTME NT P. LTD., (2006) 102 ITD 227 (DELHI) WHEREIN THE DECISION OF HONBLE 3 M.A.NO.13, 14 & 15/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1386, 1387 & 1388/HYD/2014 MR. SYED AFSAR HASAN, MR. SYED BAQAR HASAN ETC., HYDERABAD. SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VSMR JAGADISHCHANDRAN (1997) 227 ITR 240 (SC) AND R.M. ARUNACHALAM VS. CIT (1997 ) 227 ITR 222 (SC) WERE CONSIDERED AND DISTINGUISHED, THO UGH WERE CITED BY ASSESSEES COUNSEL IN COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL, TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THEM. IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT THESE TWO DECISIONS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEE S CASE, HENCE ARE APPLICABLE. 5. HOWEVER, AS CAN BE SEEN IN PARA 13 OF THE ORDER, TRIBUNAL HAS SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED A.R. WHEREIN THESE TWO DECISIONS ALS O FIND PLACE. FURTHER, FINDING IN PARA 17 WOULD CLEARLY SH OW THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS CITED BY ASSESSEES COUNS EL THE TRIBUNAL FORMED A VIEW THAT THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE AS ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL, THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN T HE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF VSMR JAGADISHCHANDRAN (1997) 227 ITR 240 (SC) AND R.M. ARUNACHALAM VS. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 222 (SC) ARE SQU ARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THEREF ORE, THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE THAT DECISIONS RELIED UPON W ERE NOT CONSIDERED IS BASELESS AND NOT BORNE OUT FROM RECOR D. MERELY BECAUSE IN THE DECISION REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED A.R., AS CONTENDED BY HIM, THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT WAS DISTINGUISHED, IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THA T SAME WILL APPLY TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE. SINCE, THE T RIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE HAS TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE AFORECITED TWO DECISIONS ARE APPLICABL E AND DECIDED THE ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THEM, THE MISCELLANE OUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THOROUGHLY M ISCONCEIVED. IT NEEDS TO BE OBSERVED, ON PERUSING THE CONTENTS O F THE 4 M.A.NO.13, 14 & 15/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1386, 1387 & 1388/HYD/2014 MR. SYED AFSAR HASAN, MR. SYED BAQAR HASAN ETC., HYDERABAD. MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS, IT IS VERY MUCH EVIDENT TH AT IN THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE ASSESSEE IS ACTUAL LY SEEKING RE- HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND REVIEW OF THE EARLIER ORD ER PASSED, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF TH E ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THERE BEING NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANE OUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEY ARE DISMIS SED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT O N 18.03.2015. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED 18 TH MARCH, 2015 VBP/- COPY TO : 1. MR. SYED AFSAR HASAN, HYDERABAD C/O. M/S. ANJANEYULU & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 30, BHAGYALAKSHMI NAGAR, GANDHI NAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 080. 2. MR. SYED BAQAR HASAN, HYDERABAD 3. LATE SMT. HOORJAHAN BEGUM, 4. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(2), HYDERABAD. 5. CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD. 6. CIT-VI, HYDERABAD. 7. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 8. GUARD FILE