The Maratha Co-op. Bank Ltd., Belgaum V. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward, Belagavi

MA 23/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4594 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND S MARATHE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO. 23/PAN/2015 ( ITA NO. 433 /PN J /201 5 ) (ASST. YEAR : 20 11 - 1 2 ) THE MARATHA COOPERATIVE BANK LTD., # 1477, BASAVAN GALLI, BELGAUM. VS. ITO, TDS WARD, BELGAVI. PAN NO. AABAM 0730 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJAY D. SHIRGUPPE C A DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ANAND S. MARATHE - DR DATE OF HEARING : 22 / 0 7 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 / 0 7 /201 6 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS A MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 433/PNJ/2015, DATED 20/03/2015. 2. SHRI SANJAY D. SHIRGUPPE, C A REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI ANAND S. MARATHE, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT. 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FI N DING IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF TIME BAR RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4 . IN REPLY, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR 2 M.ANO.23/PAN/2015 ( ITA NO. 433 /P NJ /201 5 ) RE - ADJUDICATION AND , CONSEQUENTLY , ALL THE ISSUE S TO BE ADJUDICATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THE LIMITATION, THOUGH , IN PAGE NO. 9 AT PARA 5, TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED THE SAME. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IN PARA 16, THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE VERIFICATION AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO THEREIN. FURTHER, THE TRIB UNAL HAS RECORDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS BEEN REVERSED, THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ERROR HA S BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, T H IS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 6 . IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON FRIDAY , THE 2 2 ND DAY OF JULY , 201 6 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 2 ND JU LY , 201 6 . VR/ - 3 M.ANO.23/PAN/2015 ( ITA NO. 433 /P NJ /201 5 ) COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI