M/s. Mudra Finvest (Gujarat) Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

MA 22/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by M/s. Mundra Finvest Gujarat Ltd., seeking rectification of an ITAT order that disallowed certain commission payments related to the sale of gold bullion and raw cotton for the assessment year 2012-2013. The assessee argued that the ITAT had overlooked a crucial contention during the initial hearing, which pertained to the consistency in allowing similar commission payments in a subsequent assessment year. The Departmental Representative contended that the ITAT's original decision was well-reasoned and considered all arguments presented. The ITAT acknowledged the oversight regarding the gold bullion commission but upheld the decision concerning the raw cotton commission.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134492 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A no.22/Ahd/2023 in आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1844/AHD/2016 िनधा!रण वष!/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/s. Mundra Finvest Gujarat Ltd., 10B, Sumantinagar Society, Nr. Sindhi School, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380013. PAN: AABCM0526H Vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Smt. Astha Maniar, A.R Revenue by : Shri Atul Pandey, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 29/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee by way of this Miscellaneous Application has pointed out the apparent mistake in the order of the ITAT and seeks the rectification of the same u/s 254(2) of the Act. M.A No.22/Ahd/2023 in ITA no.1844/AHD/2016 Asstt. Year 2012-13 2 2. The Ld. AR before us contended that there was commission payment to 6 parties amounting to Rs. 17,13,530/- in relation to sale of gold bullion. Likewise, there was the commission payment of Rs. 2,16,000/- in relation to sale of raw cotton. The aggregated amount of payment of Rs. 19,29,530/- was disallowed by the ITAT vide its order dated 09/11/2022. It was pointed out by the Ld. AR that among the other contention one of the contention was raised before the Tribunal at the time of hearing that the same amount of commission in relation to sale of gold bullion was paid in subsequent AY amounting to Rs. 13,73,610/- which was allowed by the AO in the assessment framed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Thus, according to the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the principles of consistency were to be adopted in the given set of facts. However, the Tribunal without considering this argument raised at the time of hearing has decided the issue against the assessee. As per the Ld. AR, the submission made at the time of hearing is very crucial to decide the issue on hand and therefore the ITAT inadvertently erred in not taking the cognizance of this argument while deciding the issue against the assessee. Thus, there is a mistake crept in the order of the ITAT which needs to be rectified. 3. On the other hand the Ld. DR contended that the ITAT has passed the detailed and reasoned order after considering all the contentions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee and therefore there is no mistake in the order of the ITAT. 4. Heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, the contention was raised by the Ld. AR at the time of hearing with respect to the payment of commission of Rs. 17,13,530/- which was allowed by the Revenue in the later year but the same had not been considered by the ITAT while passing the order. Admittedly, contention of the ld. AR is very crucial to decide the issue raised before us, therefore, we hold that there is a mistake in the order of the ITAT which requires to be rectified. As M.A No.22/Ahd/2023 in ITA no.1844/AHD/2016 Asstt. Year 2012-13 3 regards to the issue of the commission expense of Rs. 2,16,000/- in relation to the sale of raw cotton, the Ld. AR at the time of hearing has not raised any contention. Rather the Ld. AR agreed to the decision of the ITAT in this regard. Hence, we hold that there is mistake apparent in the order of the ITAT with respect to the sale of gold bullion and not in relation the commission expense in connection with the sale of raw cotton. Thus, we recall the impugned ground only to the extent of commission expense of Rs. 17,13,530/- only with respect to the sale of gold bullion. The date of hearing is fixed on 12/04/2023. As the date of hearing has been pronounced in the open court, there is no need to issue separate notice intimating the date of hearing to any of the party. In view of the above the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 29/03/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 29/03/2023 Manish