ATUL M. RAMAIYA, V. ACIT 24(1),

MA 20/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5575 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C OMI NINGSHEN
• Assessee Lawyers: B V JHAVERI

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -ABENCH MUMBAI , ,, , , ,, , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND PAVAN SINGH,JUDICIAL MEMBER / MA NO.20//MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF / ITA NO.3053 & CO 92 /MUM/2013- /AY.-2000-01 SHRI. ATUL M. RAMAIYA, 23, DATTANI CHAMBERS, OPP: SHANTINATH SHOPPING CENTRE, S.V.ROAD, MALAD(W),MUMBAI 64. PAN:AAAPR8012P VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 24(1), MUMBAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI M.C.OMI NINGSHEN ASSESSEE BY: SHRI B.V.JHAVERI / DATE OF HEARING: 28.07.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.10.2017 / ORDER / PER RAJENDRA, AM - VIDE HIS APPLICATION ,DTD.18.01.2016 THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL FOR THE ABOVE REFERRED ASSESSMENT YEAR ( A.Y.) ON 28/10/2015,THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,THAT SAME WERE TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING IN SHARES,THAT HE WAS NOT A TRADER,THAT IT WAS ARGUED THAT HE WAS AN INVE STOR,THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS AN INVESTOR,THAT WHILE DECIDING THE CO,THE TRIBUNAL HAS INADVERTENTLY HELD THAT HE WAS A TRADER AND HAD SOLD THE SHARE WITH A MOTIVE TO EARN PROFIT,THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L WAS ERRONEOUS TO THAT EXTENT AND NEEDED RECTIFICATION. 2. DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US THE AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE APPLICATION AND THE DR LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD.WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD FILED AN APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED C O FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL,THAT WHILE DECIDING THE CO THE TRIBUNAL HAD OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS A TRADER,THAT FROM THE FACT AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADMITTED THAT HE WAS DEALING IN SHARES. THUS,TO THA T EXTENT,THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE 2 ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL.SO,ALLOWING THE MA FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE,WE RECALL OUR ORDER PASSED WHILE ADJUDICATING THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. RE GISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE MATTER BEFORE THE REGULAR BENCH FOR FRESH HEARING. AS A RESULT, MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH , OCTOBER, 2017. 13, 2017 SD/- SD/- ( / PAVAN SINGH ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 13.10.2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.