ITO, Bangalore V. M/s Pramod & Others, Bangalore

MA 16/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2261 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L V BHASKAR REDDY J
• Assessee Lawyers: PADAMCHAND KHINCHA
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P.BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC.PETN.NO. 16 /BANG/2014 (IN ITA NO. 375 / BANG/20 1 1 & CO NO.93/BANG/2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 6 - 07 ) INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), BANGALORE. PETITIONER VS. M/S.PRAMOD & OTHERS, NO.5, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE. RESPONDENT PETITIONER BY: SHRI L.V.BHASKAR REDDY, JCIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PADAMCHAND KHINCHA, CA. DATE OF HEARING : 0 8 - 0 8 - 2014 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 - 08 - 2014 . O R D E R PER SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF ALLEGED MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31 - 10 - 2013 IN ITA NO.375/BANG/2011 & C.O. NO.93/BANG/2011. 2. THE REVENUE HAS POINTED OUT THE FOLLOWING TWO MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD: MP NO . 16 /BANG/2014 M/S.PRAMOD & OTHERS PAGE 2 OF 4 (I) THE ITAT, IN ITS ORDER DATED 31 - 10 - 2013 AT PARA 6 PAGE 6 AT LINE 12, HAS MENTIONED THE DATE OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AS 12 - 9 - 2008 WHEREAS THE CORRECT DATE IS 16 - 9 - 2008 . IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED BEFORE US XEROX COPIES OF THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE DT.16 - 9 - 2009 REQUESTING THE AO TO T REAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT. TAKING NOTE OF THE ABOVE, WE AMEND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY SUBSTITUTING THE DATE 12 - 9 - 2008 IN PARA.6, PAGE6, LINE 12 WITH 16 - 9 - 2008 . (II) THE SECOND MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS THAT THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, INCLUDING THAT OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE DECISIONS AND THEREFORE IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD: A. SMT.GURINDER KAUR (102 ITD 189)(DELHI ITAT) B. M/S.AREVA T & D INDIA LTD. (294 ITR 233)(MAD.) C. S.NARAYANAPPA (63 ITR 219)(SC) FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL , WE FIND THAT AT PAGE 6, PARA 6 THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: TH OUGH THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS TO THE EFFECT THAT IF THE REASONS ARE NOT SUPPLIED TO THE MP NO . 16 /BANG/2014 M/S.PRAMOD & OTHERS PAGE 3 OF 4 ASSESSEE IT IS ONLY A N IRREGULARITY AND HAS TO BE REMANDED BACK TO THE AO FOR FURNISHING OF REAS ONS AND DISPOSED OF THE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.SYNOPSYS INTERNATIONAL LTD. ITA NO.549/BANG/2011 DT.10 - 12 - 2012) WHE REIN THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. IN ITA 4235 OF 2010 DATED 20 - 7 - 2011 WAS FOLLOWED. THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INVALID FOR THE REASON THAT THE REASONS RE CORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WERE NOT FURNISHED DESPITE REQUEST BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT AND WERE FURNISHED ONLY AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. AS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BEFORE US ARE SIMILAR TO THE CASE BEFORE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND THE ASSESSMENT IS ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. THUS IT IS SEEN THAT THE TRIBUNAL, THOUGH HAS NOT MENTIONED EACH OF THE CASE S RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BY THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE CITATIONS SPECIFICALLY, IT HAS CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT DECISIONS AND HAS ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS ALLOWED IN PART. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH OF AUGUST, 2014. SD/ - SD/ - (JA SON P BOAZ) (SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER EKSRINIVASULU MP NO . 16 /BANG/2014 M/S.PRAMOD & OTHERS PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. PETITIONER 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRA R INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE