ITO 23(3)(3), V. SHAMIM M BHARWANI,

MA 206/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3866 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MISHRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH , JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM MA NO. 206/MUM/2015 ( A RISING O UT OF ITA NO. 4906/MUM/2011 ) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 ) ITO - 23(3)(3), MUMBAI ROOM NO 118, 1 ST FLOOR MATRU MANDIR, GRANT ROAD, MUMBAI 400 007 / VS. SHAMIM M. BHARWANI NOOR - E - REHMANT 5 TH FLOOR, B.J. ROAD, BANDRA MUMBAI (W) 400 050 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AACPG 8674N ( / APP LICAN T ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APP LICANT BY : SHRI S.K. MISHRA / RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 08/01 /2016 DATE OF ORDER : 21 /01/2016 / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 254( 1 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.03.2015 IN ITS CA SE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2006 - 07 . 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE - RESPONDENT WHEN THE REVENUES PETITION WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, NOR DO WE OBSERVE ANY ADJOURNMENT MOTION BY HIM. THIS DESPITE DUE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING, A S APPARENT FROM RPAD, I.E., REGISTERED POST ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE (AT THE ASSESSEES REGISTERED ADDRESS) , ISSUED ON 22.12.2015 , ON RECORD, WHICH HAS BEEN NOT RETURNED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT 2 M.A. NO. 206/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2006 - 07) ITO VS. SHAMIM M. BHARWANI WAS CONSIDERED PROPER TO PROCEED AND DECIDE THE REVENUES INST ANT APPLICATION, AF TER HEARING THE PARTY BEFORE US AND CONSIDER ING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. THE REVENUE, PER ITS APPLICATION UNDER REFERENCE, STATES THAT THOUGH ITS APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS APPARENT ON READING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IN ITS FAVOUR, IT MISTAK EN LY STATES, WHILE STATING THE RESULT THEREOF AT PARA 5 OF THE ORDER, OF THE SAME BEING DISMISSED , I.E., INSTEAD OF ALLOWED . TOWARD THIS, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE WOULD TAKE US THROUGH THE RELEVANT PART/S OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTY BEFORE US, AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH HAS IN FACT BEEN READ IN TOTO . WITHOUT AN IOTA OF DOUBT, THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE REVENUES STAND, ALLOWING ITS APPEAL , AND THERE H AS THUS OCCURR ED A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE AT PARA 5 OF ITS ORDER. THE WORD DISMISSED THEREIN IS ACCORDINGLY SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORD ALLOWED AND , CONCOMITANTLY , THE WORD IN HINDI VERSION (OF THE RESULT) BY THE WORD . 5. FURTHER, WE TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT ANOTHER TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THAT HAS COME TO OUR NOTICE WHILE READING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, I.E., AT LINE 18 OF PARA 4.4 (PAGE 8) : T HE WORD BROUG HT IN THE RELEVANT SENTENCE IS TO BE READ AS BOUGHT. THE MISTAKE, AGAIN, A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR, WOULD BE AT ONCE APPARENT FROM A MERE READING OF T HE SAID SENTENCE ITSELF. THE SAME CAUSE S NO PREJUDICE TO EITHER SIDE. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN THE RES ULT, THE MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON JANUARY 08 , 201 6 ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ITSELF. SD/ - SD/ - ( JOGINDER SINGH ) (S ANJ AY ARORA) / J UDICIAL MEMBER / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 21 . 01.2016 3 M.A. NO. 206/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2006 - 07) ITO VS. SHAMIM M. BHARWANI ROSHANI, SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARD ED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI