Maya Jewellers, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Circle- 7, Ahmedabad

MA 172/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4616 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.172 AND 173/AHD/2013 IN ./ IT(SS)A.NO.486 AND 487/AHD/2010 ASSTT.YEAR : 1998-1999 AND 2003-2004 MAYA JEWELLERS C/O. SHRI DEVENDRA CHATURVEDI 13, NIRANT PARK SOCIETY PART-I, THALTEJ AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAQFM 1739 M VS ACIT, CIR.7 AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASEEM THAKKAR, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 05/08/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05/08/2016 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT TWO MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23.11.2012 PASSED IN IT(SS)A.NOS.486 AND 487/AHD/20 10. 2. IT IS PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT IN THE LAS T PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: MA NO.172 AND 173/AHD/2013 2 6 .. BEFORE WE PART WITH, IT IS WORTH TO MENTIO N, THAT THE BENCH HAS ENQUIRED ABOUT THE PENDENCY OF ANY APPEAL IN RE SPECT OF ANY OF THE IN BETWEEN YEARS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. LD.AR HAS ST ATED AT BAR THAT ONLY THESE TWO YEARS WERE INVOLVED AND REST OF THE YEARS WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO TAX. 3. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AP PEALS FOR OTHER YEARS WERE ALSO FILED IN THE TRIBUNAL AND WERE PENDING. IT IS A FACTUAL ERROR COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED S TATEMENT OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ISSUED A NOTICE INVITING EXPLAN ATION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING SUCH WRONG STATEMENT OF FACTS. THE LD.COUNSEL HAS FILED HIS EXPLANATION AND POINTED OUT AS TO HOW THI S STATEMENT WAS GIVEN. ACCORDING TO THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, APPEA LS FOR OTHER YEARS WERE FILED AT DIFFERENT POINT OF TIME, AND DUE TO RENOVATION O F WORK IN THE OFFICE, HE WAS UNABLE TO LAY HIS HAND ON COMPLETE DETAILS OF ALL T HE YEARS. UNDER A BONA FIDE MISTAKE, THIS STATEMENT WAS MADE. IT WAS IMMEDIATE LY POINTED OUT TO THE BENCH ON RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE AND MA WAS ALSO FILE D FOR EXPUNGING THIS WRONG FINDING OF FACT INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER. T HE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE ENTRY MADE IN THE ORDER SHEET HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION A LL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A FACTUAL ER ROR HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS BY WAY OF A BONA FIDE MISTAKE, THEREFORE, WE EXPUNGE THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL VIZ. 6 .. BEFORE WE PART WITH, IT IS WORTH TO MENTIO N, THAT THE BENCH HAS ENQUIRED ABOUT THE PENDENCY OF ANY APPEAL IN RE SPECT OF ANY OF THE IN BETWEEN YEARS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. LD.AR HAS ST ATED AT BAR THAT ONLY THESE TWO YEARS WERE INVOLVED AND REST OF THE YEARS WERE NOT SUBJECTED TO TAX. MA NO.172 AND 173/AHD/2013 3 THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BE READ ACCORDINGLY, WIT HOUT THIS OBSERVATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MAS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 05/08/2016