Mrs Neena Kiran Padiyar, Margao V. Asst. Commr. of Income Tax, Margao

MA 20/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1534 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B BARTHAKUR
• Assessee Lawyers: D E ROBINSON

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 20 /PNJ/2013 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO . 97 /PNJ/2013 ) (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2007 - 08) MRS. NEENA KIRAN PADIYAR 12, 2 ND FLOOR, SAPANA CHAMBERS, VARDE VALAULIKAR, MARGAO - 403601, GOA. PAN: ADZPK4652J (APPLICANT ) VS. THE ASS ISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO - GOA (RESPONDENT) APPLICAN T BY : SHRI D.E. ROBINSON, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. BARTHAKUR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 03/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/01/2014 O R D E R PER: D.T.GARASIA (JM) THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE APPLICANT ON THE GROUND THAT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 03.10.1995 BETWEEN THE APPLICAN T AND SIDDESH PADIYAR WAS FILED AND AS PER THE DIRECTION COPIES OF LETTERS REFERRED TO IN THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS ALSO FILED. THIS DOCUMENTS SO FILED WERE NOT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE H ONBLE BENCH HAS RESTORE D THE ORDER OF AO BUT BENCH HAS NOT HEARD IN RESPECT OF AND IN REGARD TO IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED IN COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE BENCH ON 02.08.2013. THE RESPONDENT SUBMITS THAT THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE WAS NEVER TAKEN BY THE REVENUE AT ANY EARLIER STAGE OR BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH. THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND VINAYAK ANGLE WAS NOT 2 . MA NO. 20 /PNJ/2013 (A.Y. - 2007 - 08 ) DISPUTED AT ANY STAGE BY THE REVENUE. THE RESPONDENT SUBMITS THAT THE JUDGMENTS OF THE JURISDI CTIONAL AND OTHER HIGH COURTS HAVE SIGNIFICANCE AND RELEVANCE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FILED IN COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTION OF THE HONBLE BENCH. THE APPLICA NT HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO DRAW REFERENCE OF THIS HONBLE BENCH TO THE AFORESAID JUDG EMENTS AND JUDGEMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PIARA SINGH (124 ITR 40). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMI SSIONS THE ORDER MAY BE CALLED AND ASSESSEE MAY BE HEARD AND APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED THEREAFTER. 2. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF TR IBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE AGREEMENT WHI CH WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN APPLICA NT AND SIDDESH PADIYAR. ON THE BASIS OF THIS DOCUMENT THERE WAS AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER SHRI DAMU SHANU NAYAK AND SMT. PRIYAGA DAMU NAYAK. THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKING AS A CONTRACTOR SHRI DAMU SHANU NAYAK AND THIS AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND CONTRACTOR WAS NOT PARTY TO THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, THEREFORE, THIS FINDING OF FACT WHICH TRIBUNA L HAS RELIED UPON AND THIS DOCUMENT WAS ALREADY PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE BENCH. THE BENCH HEARD THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THIS AGREEMENT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW IN RESPECT OF AGREEMENT AND WHEN TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN ONE V IEW AND THAT IS MATTER OF APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE. WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS FINDING UNDER THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION U/S. 254 OF THE I T ACT. IT IS WELL SETT LED THAT TRIBUNAL CAN RECTIFY ITS MISTAKE AND SUCH RECTIFICATION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO REVIEW WHICH IS ALONE BARRED. THE TRIBUNAL HAD COME TO ONE CONCLUSION AND TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN THE VIEW AFTER APPRECIATING THE EVIDENCE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW I TS OWN ORDER BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPLICANT. 3 . MA NO. 20 /PNJ/2013 (A.Y. - 2007 - 08 ) 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.01.2014. S D / - S D / - ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 3 . 1 .2014. P.S. - *PK* COPY TO: ( 1 ) APPELLANT ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PANAJI, GOA