ITO-4(2) Indore, INDORE V. Ayush Jain, Indore

MA 16/Ind/2021

AI Insights

The case involves three Miscellaneous Applications (M/A) filed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Indore against Shri Ayush Jain and Shri Pritesh Jain (HUF), concerning the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16. The applications were based on the ITAT's earlier decision which had allowed the assessee's appeals, leading to a favorable outcome for them. The revenue sought rectification of the ITAT's order, claiming that the tribunal had made an apparent mistake regarding the status of 'M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd.' as a penny stock and had overlooked certain case laws. However, the tribunal found that the revenue had misinterpreted the order and that the legal precedents cited were indeed considered in their decision. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the M/A, affirming the original ruling.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130747 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: REVENUES CONTENTION IS; ASSESSEE OPPOSED
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 4 आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,इंदौर Ûयायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No. 16/Ind/2021 (Arising out of ITA No.616/Ind/2019) Assessment Year: 2014-15 I.T.O., 4(2), Indore. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Ayush Jain, 132, Baikunthdham Colony, Indore. PAN: AHOPJ6426C (Revenue /Applicant) (Assessee /Respondent) MA No. 01 & M.A.No.02/Ind/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.293/Ind/2020 & 617/Ind/2019) Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16 I.T.O., 4(1), Indore. बनाम/ Vs. Shri Pritesh Jain (HUF), 43B, Laxmi Bai Nagar, Indore. PAN: AAAHJ6285J (Revenue /Applicant) (Assessee /Respondent) Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Assessee by Shri Ajay Tulsiyan and Shri Ranjan Agrawal, AR Date of He aring 18.08.2023 Date of Pronoun ce me nt 09.11.2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: ITO, 4(2)/4(1), Indore. Shri Ayush Jain, Shri Pritesh Jain MANos. 16/Ind/2021,01/Ind/2022 & 02/I(nd/2022 A.Ys.2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Page 2 of 4 These three (3) Misc. Applications[“M/A”] u/s 254(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961 are preferred by revenueseeking rectification/recall of the Order dated 30.04.2021 of ITAT, Indore Benchin ITA Nos.616/Ind/2019 (in case of Shri Ayush Jain for AY 2014-15), ITA No. 293/Ind/2020 (in case of Shri Pritesh Jain HUF for AY 2014-15) and ITA No. 617/Ind/2019 (in case of Shri Pritesh Jain HUF for AY 2015-16), by which assessee’s appeals were allowed. Since these M/As arise from a single order of ITAT and involve identical issue and identical underlying facts, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Ld. DR for revenue/applicantsubmitted that the ITAT has committed an apparent mistake by giving relief to assessee by observing in Para 19.3 / Page 15 of the impugnedorder that the scrip “M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd.” dealt by assessee was not a penny stock because no enquiry or proceeding had been initiated and no action had been taken against the company or any of its directors by any authority like SEBI, Stock Exchange, etc. whereas the correct fact is such that the SEBI passed order dated 06.09.2021 against M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. on account of fraudulent trading for manipulating company’s share price and also banned the company for a period of one year from accessing or be associated with securities market. Ld. AR for assessee objected to the submission of Ld. AR. He carried carried us to various paras of impugned order and demonstrated that the Para 19.3 / Page 15 referred by revenue/Ld. DR is actually a sub-para of main Para 11. Ld. AR demonstrated that main Para 11 is very lengthy having sub-paras starting ITO, 4(2)/4(1), Indore. Shri Ayush Jain, Shri Pritesh Jain MANos. 16/Ind/2021,01/Ind/2022 & 02/I(nd/2022 A.Ys.2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Page 3 of 4 from 1 and ending 33.7. Ld. AR submitted that the Para 11 of ITAT order reads thus: “11. The written submission in the form of synopsis by the assessee is reproduced below: Sub-para 1 to 33.6 (contents not re-produced)” Thus, Ld. AR submitted, Para 11 (including sub-para 19.3) is a re- production of assessee’s written-submission only. It seems that the revenue/applicant has wrongly understood sub-para 19.3 as containing findings made by ITAT. Ld. AR submitted that the operative part of ITAT containing findings and conclusions actually starts from Para 15. Then, Ld. AR submitted that nowhere in Para 15 onwards, ITAT has given relief to assessee on the basis of assessee’s submission mentioned in sub-para 19.3. Therefore, the contention raised by revenue is incorrect. On a mindful consideration, we agree with the submission of Ld. AR which could not even be rebutted by Ld. DR for revenue. Therefore, revenue’s contention is rejected there being no mistake in order of ITAT. 3. Ld. DR next submitted that the ITAT has passed impugned order without going through various case-laws mentioned in the order dated 31.08.2020 of first-appeal passed by CIT(A). Ld. AR for assessee opposed this claim by submitting that the ITAT has allowed relief to assessee, in Para 18 to 20 of order, by following several relevant decisions of Co-ordinate Benches and other judicial authorities as applicable to assessee’s facts and argued during hearing.Therefore, there is hardly any mistake, much less apparent mistake, in ITAT’s order. On perusal, we prima facie find that there ITO, 4(2)/4(1), Indore. Shri Ayush Jain, Shri Pritesh Jain MANos. 16/Ind/2021,01/Ind/2022 & 02/I(nd/2022 A.Ys.2014-15, 2014-15 & 2015-16, Page 4 of 4 is a considerable discussion of judicial rulingsin the order of ITAT. Therefore, the submission of Ld. AR is meritorious and must be accepted. Revenue’s contention is rejected therefore. 4. We thus accept assessee’s vehement contentions supporting the impugned order.Consequently, this M/A filed by revenue is devoid of any merit and dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09.11.2023. Sd/- sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore Ǒदनांक /Dated :09.11.2023. CPU/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore