Transpek Industries Limited, Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-4, Baroda

MA 219/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1043 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER M/S TRANSPEK INDUSTRY LTD, 6 TH FLOOR, MARBLE ARCH, RACE COURSE ROAD, BARODA (APPELLANT) VS ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLE-4 BARODA (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI SANJAY R. SHAH, A.R . REVENUE BY: SRI K.C. MATHEWS, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-10-20 13 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS ARISEN OUT OF O RDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 715/AHD/2009 AND ITA NO. 996/AH D/2009 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 DATED 30-12-2011. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE ITAT WHILE DECIDING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND T AKEN BY THE ASSESSEE M.A. NO. 219/AHD/2012 (IN ITA NO. 715/AHD/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 M.A. NO.219/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2002-03 PAGE NO M/S TRANSPEK INDUSTRY VS. ACIT 2 WHICH WAS ALSO RELATED TO GROUND NO. 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE VIDE PARA 21 OF THE ORDER DATED 30-12-2011. BUT THERE IS NO CLARITY ABOUT THE DIRECTION ABOUT SENDING BACK T HE FILE TO THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A). HE THEREFORE PRAYED THAT ORDER MAY AC CORDINGLY BE RECTIFIED TO REMOVE THIS AMBIGUITY, THIS BEING A MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM RECORD. LD. DR HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS IT IS CLEAR FROM PARA 15 OF THE ORDER THAT MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, AND TO REMOVE ANY AMBIGUITY IN OUR ORDER THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS RECTIFIED AS UNDER. LAST LINE OF PARA 21 OF OUR ORDER WILL NOW READ AS UNDER:- IN VIEW OF THIS, ADDITIONAL GROUND OF ASSESSEE AND THAT OF THE REVENUE ARE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICAT ION AND THUS BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE INSTEAD OF IN VIEW OF THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND OF ASSESSEE AND THAT OF THE REVENUE BOTH ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 11/10/2013 M.A. NO.219/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2002-03 PAGE NO M/S TRANSPEK INDUSTRY VS. ACIT 3 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,