Shobha Mahendra Patel, L/h. of Late Shri Kanubhai G. Patel, Baroda V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Baroda

MA 162/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6365 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL R SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) M.A. NO: 162/AHD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 65/AHD/2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) SHOBHA MAHENDRA PATEL, L/H OF LATE SHRI KANUBHAI GIRDHARBHAI PATEL, PROP. KANUBHAI G. PATEL, 6, CHETAN SOCIETY, AKOTA ROAD, BARODA V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: ACQPP7754E APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL R. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 06 -04-201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 -04-2018 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 65/AHD/2011. M.A NO. 162/ AHD/2016 . A.Y. 2006-0 7 2 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY STATED THAT WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSID ERED CERTAIN DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BECAUSE OF WHICH A MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND NEED TO BE RECTIFIED U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE DOC UMENTS WHICH WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WERE PERSONALLY FILED BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN SUPPOR T OF WHICH EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE FILING OF THE PAPERS WAS ALSO FILED WHICH WA S NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS AS THE SAME W AS FILED AFTER THE CLOSURE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINI ON, THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE REVIEWED U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT AND THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DO NOT POINT OUT ANY MIST AKE APPARENT FROM RERECORD. HENCE, DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09 - 04- 2 018 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 09/04/2018 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD