Lally Motors India Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar V. The Principal Commissioner of income Tax-2, Jalandhar

MA 17/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5073 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMIR BHATIA
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 17/Asr/2018 Lally Motors India P. Ltd v. Pr.CIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 17/Asr/2018 (Arising out of ITA No-218/Asr/2017) SA No. 13/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Lally Motors India Pvt Ltd c/o Samir Bhatia Advocate, 158/2, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab [PAN: AABCL4446M] Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax- 2, Jalandhar, Punjab. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Samir Bhatia Advocate Respondent by: Sh. Sanjeet Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 25.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 04.03.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: By way of this miscellaneous application the assessee has sought the rectification of the order dated 12.04.2018 passed in ITA No. 218/Asr/2017. 2. The Ld. A.R. submitted before the Bench that while passing the order, the Tribunal did not consider the Ground no-1 out of assessee’s 12 ground filed before the bench with Form no-36. 3. The original order bearing ITA No-218/Asr/2017 was passed by the Hon’able Bench by a speaking order & considered all grounds together as heard. 2 ITA No. 17/Asr/2018 Lally Motors India P. Ltd v. Pr.CIT 4. During the proceeding of hearing the counsel of the assessee pointed out that assessee’s 1 st Ground of appeal was not considered by the Bench. The ground is as follows:- “1. On fact and circumstances of the case, order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax is bad in law and proceeds on the stand alone footing of being prejudiced against the assessee as the notice being hyper-technical in nature and violates the principal of natural justice, therefore the same deserves to quashed on merits of the case.’ The counsel submitted paper book before the Bench which is kept in file. 5. The ld CIT-DR referred the judgment of Hon’able Supreme Court of India Commissioner of Income-tax (IT-4), Mumbai v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC). As per the order of apex court, Tribunal was not required to re-visit its original order and go in details on merits and completely recall its order as powers under provision of section 254(2) were only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from record. 6. We considered the submission of both the parties. The original order is considered all grounds of assessee & it is fully speaking order. Here, no point was untouched for rectification apparent from the record. 7. As a result the Miscellaneous Petition of the assessee is dismissed. 8. The assessee also filed the stay application bearing no:- SA No. 13/Asr/2018. The prayer was made to stay the appeal proceeding initiated against the assessee. 9. The stay application of the assessee is also rejected. Order pronounced in the open court on 04.03.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member Date: 04.03.2022 *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: 3 ITA No. 17/Asr/2018 Lally Motors India P. Ltd v. Pr.CIT (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The CIT-DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order