Shiv Kumar Yadav, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 34(3), New Delhi

MA 187/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5172 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI GUPTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No.187/DEL/2021 (Arising out of ITA No.7755/DEL/2019) [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Shiv Kumar Yadav, KD-32A, Phase-1, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052 ITO, Ward-34(3), Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Civic Centre, New Delhi-110001 PAN-ABNPY6088N Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Ravi Gupta, CA & Sh. Naman Gupta, CA Revenue by Sh. Hemant Gupta, SR-DR Date of Hearing 18.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM, The assessee, through this Miscellaneous Application, requests the Tribunal to rectify certain mistakes that have crept in the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.7755/Del/2019 for AY 2016-17. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the contents of the Miscellaneous Application drew the attention of the Bench to the same which reads as under:- 2 MA No.187/Del/2021 The appellant submits as under:- 1. Para-2 of the above said order This is not the second round of litigation before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The appellant has come for the first time before the Hon’ble Tribunal. ITA No.3386/Del/2018 dt. 06.11.2018 referred to in the order is not the case of appellant. It is the case of Gopi Chand vs ITO as referred by the appellant on page No.21 of paper book. Our case is of Shiv Kumar Yadav. 2. Para 3 of the above said order Same as above 3. Para 8 of the said order During the hearing, on the specific request of the appellant, the appellant was made to understand that the above case will be restored to the file of AO as the AO had also passed the ex-party order but inadvertently, this order has been restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the same may kindly be restored to AO as ordered by your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 3. He submitted that the contents of the Miscellaneous Application are self explanatory. He accordingly requested the Bench to pass necessary order by rectifying/modifying the order. 3 MA No.187/Del/2021 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied upon the order of the Tribunal and strongly opposed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. 5. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. So far as the mistake in the order mentioned by the ld. Counsel for the assessee is concerned, it is the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that this is not the second round of litigation before the Tribunal and the dispute arose before the Tribunal for the first time. Further, at the time of hearing itself, it was announced that this matter shall be set-aside to the file of the AO, since both the lower authorities have passed ex-parte order. I verified the log book and found that the matter in fact was restored to the file of the AO, which was announced in the open court. Therefore, I am of the opinion that mistake has crept in the order of the Tribunal which requires rectification. I, therefore, hold and direct that para 8 of the order be read as under:- “I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the records. It is an admitted fact that, the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) have passed ex-parte orders due to non- appearance of the assessee. It is the submission 4 MA No.187/Del/2021 of the learned counsel for the assessee that due to non-receipt of notice from the office of the learned CIT(A), the assessee could not appear before him. It is also his submission that due to fracture of leg, the assessee was under bed rest and was not in a position to move, for which the case also remained unrepresented before the learned CIT(A). Considering the totality of facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the AO with a direction to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The assessee is also hereby directed to appear before the AO without seeking any adjournment under any pretext failing which the AO is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.” 6. So far as the first mistake, i.e. this is the second round of litigation is concerned, I find from the record that it is the first round of litigation before the Tribunal and not the second round of litigation. 7. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is allowed. This order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on 18.02.2022. Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [R.K.PANDA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi; Dated: 18 th February, 2022. f{x~{tÜ? f{x~{tÜ?f{x~{tÜ? f{x~{tÜ? fÜA fÜA fÜA fÜA P.S P.SP.S P.S 5 MA No.187/Del/2021 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi