Rahul Mehandiratta, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 174/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8844 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E”–‘Friday’ : NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) Misc. App. No. 174/Del/2018. [ in ITA. No. 3634/Del/2016 ] (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Shri Rahul Mehandiratta, C – 75, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi – 110 009. PAN: AJQPM7663J Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward : 19 (3), New Delhi. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jai Bhagwan Sharma, C. A.; Department by: Shri Harpal Singh, Sr. D. R.; Date of Hearing : 29/10/2021 Date of pronouncement : 11/11/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This Miscellaneous Application No. 174/Del/2018, under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in ITA. No. 3634/Del/2016 for assessment year 2006-07 decided by ‘SMC’ Bench on 23.06.2017 is filed by the assessee stating that there are errors in the order of the bench as under:- “Sub: Misc. Application U/s. 254(2) of IT Act, 1961. Ref: Rahul Mehandiratta Vs. CIT (Appeals)-12 Assessment year 2006-07 1TA No. 3634/Del/2016. In connection to the abovestated sub. and ref., it is to submit that Hon’ble ITAT has probably erroneously erred while passing order for the Asst. Year 2006-07 by simply stating in Page 4 of ITAT order “ That Assessee has claimed that deal was cancelled and Assessee has returned the money to M/s. Sheela Credit & Leasing Limited . However, No details of repayment to M/s. Sheela Credit Misc. App. No. 174/Del/2018 (in ITA. 3634/Del/2016 – A.Y. 2006-07) Page | 2 & Leasing Limited has been submitted whereas we had produced confirmation from M/s. Sheela Credit & Leasing Limited regarding payments made by the assessee to M/s. Sheela Credit & Leasing Limited vide letter submitted dated 21.06.2017. For your kind reference, we are once again submitting herewith letter dated 21.06.2017 alongwith confirmation from M/s. Sheela Credit & Leasing Limited regarding payments made by the Assessee. Hon’ble ITAT order error needs to be considered for review as per provisions of Sec.254(2) of I.T. Act,1961 and can be said to be an error apparent from the record for which rectification is being sought and can be rectified, in the interest of justice and merits. “ 2. The ld. AR reiterated the same facts. It was stated that assessee submitted letter dated 21.06.2017 wherein the confirmation with respect to M/s. Sheela Credit & Leasing Limited for payments made by the assessee was submitted, but has been ignored by the bench. 3. The ld. DR vehemently stated that the order of the bench does not have any error apparent from the record. 4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. We find that in para No. 3 the co-ordinate bench has stated that no details of re-payment to M/s. Sheela Credit & Leasing Limited has been submitted. Therefore, the bench held that agreement to sell entered into by the assessee with M/s. Sheela Credit & Leasing Limited was a sham agreement and it was made just to explain the source of money deposited in the bank account of the assessee. We find that assessee has submitted letter dated 21 st June, 2017 wherein in para No. 3 the assessee referred to the confirmation from that company along with the letter of confirmation dated 31 st March, 2019 was also submitted. The above letter was erroneously not considered by the co-ordinate bench. Therefore, to that extent there is an error in the order of the ITAT. The fact shows that the assessee has submitted the details of re-payment. In view of this, the claim of the assessee is found to be correct that assessee has re-paid Rs.8,40,000/- out of the total advance of Rs.15,00,000/- received by the assessee. Even as a material has not been considered by the co-ordinate bench, we hold that there is an error apparent from the record in the order of the ITAT. Thus, the order passed by the bench is recalled. The Misc. application filed by the assessee is Misc. App. No. 174/Del/2018 (in ITA. 3634/Del/2016 – A.Y. 2006-07) Page | 3 allowed. Appeal of the assessee is directed to be fixed for hearing in regular course. Order pronounced in the open court on : 11/11/2021. Sd/- Sd/- ( KUL BHARAT ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 11/11/2021. *MEHTA* Copy forwarded to : 1. Applicant; 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Date of dictation 11.11.2021 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the dictating member 11.11.2021 Date on which the typed draft is placed before the other member 11.11.2021 Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/ PS 11.11.2021 Date on which the fair order is placed before the dictating member for pronouncement 11.11.2021 Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/ PS 11.11.2021 Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT 11.11.2021 date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 11.11.2021 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the order