G Ramanlal, Hyderabad V. ITO,Ward 11(4), Hyderabad

MA 169/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1427 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y YADAGIRI
• Assessee Lawyers: R SESHAGIRI RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISC. APPLN. NO.169/HYD/2013 (IN ITA NO.647/HYD/10) : ASSTT. YEAR 2004 - 05 MISC. APPLN. NO.170/HYD/2013 (IN ITA NO.648/HYD/10) : ASSTT. YEAR 2005 - 06 SHRI G.RAMANLAL, HYDERABAD. ( PAN - ACWPG 4404 E ) V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11 (4), HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI R.SESHAGIRI RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI Y.YADAGIRI DR DATE OF HEARING 10.1.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.1.2014 O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY TH E S E APPLICATION S , THE APPLICANT SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF THE COMMON ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 25.4.2013 IN ITA N O.647/HYD/2010 AND ITA NO.648/HYD/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 , ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD HAS CREPT INTO THE SAME. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATING THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION S , SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL, SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS, IN LINE 2 OF PARA - 7 OF ITS ORDER DATED 25.4.2013 INCORRECTLY MENTIONED THE WORDS THE CIT(A), WHEREAS THE WORDS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED, AS THE DIRECTIONS IN THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE ARE IN FACT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND NOT THE CIT (A). MA NO. 169 &170 /HY D/2013 (IN I TA NO. 647 &648 / HYD/201 0 ) SHRI G.RAMANLAL, HYDERABAD. 2 3 . WE HEARD BOTH SIDES ON TH E S E APPLICATION S AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 25.4.2013. WE FIND THAT THERE IS IN FACT, A MISTAKE IN LINE 2 OF PARA 7 OF THE SAID ORDER, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED AS IF THE MATTER WAS TO BE REMITTED TO TH E FILE OF THE CIT(A), WHEREAS IN FACT, IT WAS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS ACCORDINGLY. WE THEREFORE, RECTIFY OUR ORDER DATED 25.4.2013, AND DIRECT THAT THE WORDS THE CIT(A) IN LINE 2 OF PARA 7 OF OUR ORDER DATE D 25.4.2013 SHOULD BE READ AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WITH THE SAID CORRECTION, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF PARA 7 SHOULD BE READ AS FOLLOWS - 7. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GO INTO THE DETAILS OF LAND HOLDINGS BY THE ASSESSEE . WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY, AND RECTIFYING OUR ORDER DATED 2 5 . 4 .2013, ALLOW THE PRESENT APPLICATION S OF THE ASSESSEE, 4 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 TH JANUARY, 2014 SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 10 TH JANUARY, 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI G.RAMANLAL, C/O.M/S. BALAJI JEWELLERS, ALIAS BALAJI KHAJANA GERM JEWELLERS, 74B, A.S.RAO NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2 . INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(4), HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V I , HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX V HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S