Mangi Lal Kandoi , JAIPUR V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2, Jaipur, JAIPUR

MA 19/JPR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Mangi Lal Kandoi, who was the appellant, and the ACIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur, as the respondent. The dispute centered on the correct application of the penalty under the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-13. Initially, the ITAT's order mistakenly referenced section 271(1)(c) instead of the correct section 271AAB. Both the assessee and the department filed Miscellaneous Applications to draw attention to this clerical error. The Tribunal acknowledged the oversight and corrected the reference in their order, ensuring that the penalty was applied under the correct section as per the legislative intent.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132475 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 254(2); 22

Judgement Text

vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Misc. Application No. 19/JP/2023 ((Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.321/JP/2022) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Mangi Lal Kandoi D-91, Amba Bari, Jaipur cuke Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-2,Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACMPK 6560 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent Misc. Application No. 24/JP/2022 ((Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.321/JP/2022) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 The ACIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Mangi Lal Kandoi D-91, Amba Bari, Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACMPK 6560 B vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Smt. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 23/05/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 19 /07/2023 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM Both these Misc. Applications have been filed by the assessee and the department respectively drawing attention of the Bench for rectification of mistake 2 MA 19/JPR/2023 MANGI LAL KANDOI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR u/s 254(2) of the Act in the ITAT order dated 13-10-2022, with following submissions. ‘’Submissions by the assessee – The above mentioned appeal has been decided by the Hon’ble Bench Jaipur vide their order dated 13-10-2022. It is submitted that while filing the appeal, we have wrongly mentioned penalty u/s271(1)© instead of 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereas the other facts and amounts are same. Only section of penalty was wrongly mentioned as 271(1)(c ). Later on, in our written submission, we have amended the grounds and correction section was mentioned. In the order dated 13-10-2022 in ITA No. 321/JP/2022, the Hon’ble ITAT has decided the grounds as penalty u/s 271(1)( c) on the basis of old grounds taken in form no. 36 whereas the penalty was levied u/s 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The grounds were later on amended in written submission. Therefore, the mistake to this extent are rectifiable and the Hom’ble Bench is requested to rectify the mistake and oblige.’’ ‘’Submission by the Department – The Hon’bnle ITAT vide order dated 13-10-2022 in ITA No. 321/JP/2022 in the case of Shri Mangi Lal Kandoi, ACMP 6560B, Amba Bari, Jaipur for A.Y. 2012-13 has allowed appeal of the assessee. The Hon’ble ITAT vide aforesaid order decided appeals for AYs.2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 in the case of the assesee. The assessee filed appeal for AY 2010-11 & 2011-12 against penalty order u/s 271(1)© of the Act and for A.Y. 2012-13 against penalty order u/s 271AAB(1)©. The Hon’ble ITAT by deciding appeal for AY 2010-11 and applied the decision thereof mutatis mutandis for AY 2012-13 in the appeal No. 321/JP/2022. 3 MA 19/JPR/2023 MANGI LAL KANDOI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR In this appeal filed against the penalty order u/s 271AA(1)(c ) for AY 2012- 13 cannot be treated as deleted on the basis of the decision for A.Y. 2010-11 which is for penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. Since the mistake is apparent from record and the same may be rectified as per the provision of Section 254(2) of the Act.’’ 2. After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench noted that there is apparent mistake which has been inadvertently typed and this requires rectification. However, the Bench takes into consideration the para 22 of its order dated 13-10-2022 which has been inadvertently typed as under:- ‘’22. The fact of the case in ITA No. 319/JPR/2022 is similar to the case in ITA No. 320 & 321/JPR/2022 and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal No. 319/JPR/2022 is equally similar on set of facts and grounds ITA No. 320 & 321/JPR/2022. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts and various grounds raised by assessee. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in ITA No. 319/JPR/2022 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the ITA No. 320 & 321/JPR/2022. In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 319 to 321/JPR/2022 stands allowed. ‘’ 4 MA 19/JPR/2023 MANGI LAL KANDOI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 3. Now the Bench feels to rectify the apparent mistake in para 22 of its order as under: ‘’22. The fact of the case in ITA No. 319/JPR/2022 is similar to the case in ITA No. 320 & 321/JPR/2022 and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal No. 319/JPR/2022 is equally similar on set of facts in ITA No. 320 & 321/JPR/2022. However, the grounds of appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 321/JP/2022 relate to imposing the penalty u/s271AAB of the Act and it is not imperative to repeat the facts and various grounds raised by assessee being similar facts. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in ITA No. 319/JPR/2022 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the ITA No. 320/JP/2022 for the assessment year 2011-12. Further, the Grounds raised by the assessee in 321/JPR/2022 relating to imposing penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act has similar facts as in the case of the assessee in ITA 319/JP/2022 which decision shall also apply in the case of the assessee in spite of fact that the grounds of appeals in both the appeals in ITA Nos.. 319/JP/2022 & 321/JP/2022 are different . In the results appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 319 to 321/JPR/2022 stands allowed.’’ 5 MA 19/JPR/2023 MANGI LAL KANDOI VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 4. Except above in para 3, there is no change in the Tribunal order and both the Misc. Application of the assessee and Department are disposed off as indicated hereinabove.. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 19 /07/2023. ¼jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 19/ 07/2023 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Shri Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 19 & 24/JP/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asst. Registrar