PRATIKSHA ENTERPRISES ( PROP TWINKLE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS LTD), V. ITO 12(3)(2),

MA 178/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0897 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: D V LAKHANI
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 178/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3303/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 PRATIKSHA ENTERPRISES - PROP. TWINKLE PROPERTY DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. ORBIT PLAZA, LOWER BASEMENT NO.02, NEW PRABHADEVI ROAD, PRABHADEVI MUMBAI-400 025. PAN NO. AAAFP 0393 D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 12(3)(2) MUMBAI ( APPLICANT ) (RE SPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.V. LAKHANI REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K. SINHA DATE OF HEARING : 06/09/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 /0 9 /2013 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION PREFERRED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO.3303/MUM/2010 DATED 04/03/2011. IN THIS APPEAL THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS SET ASIDE A ND APPEAL WAS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO RE ASSESS THE WHOLE ISSUE AS ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM O F PAPER BOOK-2 CONSISTING PAGES 1TO 118. NOW THE ASSESSEE WANTS TH E ISSUE TO BE DECIDED ON ALL OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL, AS ASSESSEE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT MA NO.178/M/13 A.Y.03-04 2 THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT DEALT WITH ANY GROUND OTHER TH AN GROUND NO.8 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL REITERATED THE FACTS AND SUBMITT ED THAT SINCE ITAT DID NOT DEAL WITH OTHER GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE WANTS THE ISSUES TO BE DEALT WITH ON ALL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. AS SEEN FROM THE ORD ER OF ITAT, THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS CENTERED AROUND ASSESSEES PRAYER FOR A DMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS, AS CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SINCE ISSUES WERE NOT RAISED AND CONSIDERED BEFORE ITAT AND PRAY ER WAS ONLY FOR THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE ORDER OF CIT( A) WAS SET ASIDE AND ISSUES WERE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIR ECTION TO EXAMINE THE WHOLE ISSUE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEES REQUEST CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED NOW IN THE APPLICATION UNDER SECT ION 254(2). HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN RAISE ALL T HE GROUNDS ORIGINALLY RAISED BEFORE ITAT BEFORE THE AO FOR PROPER EXAMINA TION AND ADJUDICATION AS THE MATTER WAS ENTIRELY SET ASIDE TO THE AO BY T HE ITAT. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS CONS IDERED REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B. RAMAKOTAIAH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 17/09/2013. JV. MA NO.178/M/13 A.Y.03-04 3 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.