ROHAN APURVA PARIKH, V. ITO 12(2(12),

MA 226/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6684 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, A.M. AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, J.M. M.A. NO. 226/MUM/2011 (IN ITA NO. 5865/M/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 ROHAN APURVA PARIKH, APPLICANT 15/B, ZAVER MAHAL, NETAJI SUBHASH ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, MUMBAI 400 020. (PAN AJCPP7586 P) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(2)(2), RESPONDENT MUMBAI 400 020. APPLICANT BY : MR. HARSH SHAH RESPONDENT BY : MR. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT D BENCH, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUM BAI, IN APPEAL ITA NO. 5865/MUM/2007 DATED 29 TH MAY, 2011. THE ASSESSEE IN THE M.A. STATED THAT THE WORDS MENTIONED IN PARAS 12 & 13 OF THE ORDER THAT AS TO WHETHER THE APPEAL HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OR THE SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWED . 2. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID WORDS CREATED A DOUBT IN THE MIND OF THE AO AND HE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDERS M.A. NO. 226/MUM/2011 ROHAN APURVA PARIKH 2 PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMITTED THE MA TTER BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 3. AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSING THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISP OSING OFF THE APPEAL, HELD AS UNDER:- 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERAT ION OF ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW INVOKED SECTION 68 WRONGLY. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASID E THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HEREBY CLARIFY THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL BY THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISPOSED OFF, ACCORDINGLY. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF JULY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 22 ND JULY, 2011 KV M.A. NO. 226/MUM/2011 ROHAN APURVA PARIKH 3 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, D BENCH, I.T .A.T., MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., MUMBAI.