Mr Parvez Mohd Yusuf Kokani, Nashik V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik, Nashik

MA 236/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1116 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R.Y. BALAWADE
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S SHINGTE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.236/PUN./2023 Arising out of I.T.(S.S.).A.No.17/PUN./2023 - Assessment Year 2010-2011 Mr. Parvez Mohd. Yusuf Kokani, Flat No.23, Detta Royal Society, Near Ashoka Marg, Nashik – 422 011. Maharashtra. PAN AXPK5901A vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Nashik. (Applicant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pramod S Shingte For Revenue : Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 15.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 19.03.2024 ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M. : This assessee’s miscellaneous application M.A.No.236/PUN./2023 filed u/s.254(2) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), seeks to recall/rectify our order dated 25.07.2023 dismissing assessee’s corresponding main appeal I.T.(S.S.)A.No.17/PUN./2023 for assessment year 2010-2011. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned counsel’s sole substantive grievance raised during the course of hearing is that on the one hand, we had heard the assessee on 25.05.2023 only regarding the question 2 MA.No.236/PUN./2023 of condonation of delay, whereas our impugned order dated 25.07.2023 has declined the main appeal on merits. He thus seeks to buttress the point that such a course of action adopted by the Bench indeed forms an apparent mistake on record u/sec.254(2) of the Act in light of [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC) ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.; [2021] and 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.; are deserves to be accepted in light of the assessee’s pleadings. 3. The Revenue on the other hand has strongly supported our order dismissing the assessee’s main appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel representing the assessee in detail and perused the case file. We are of the considered opinion that once we have decided the assessee’s appeal on merits by passing a well reasoned order, re-visiting the same in miscellaneous application jurisdiction is not permissible in law since the same involves detailed roving enquiry(ies). We accordingly reject the assessee’s instant miscellaneous application M.A.No.236/PUN./2023 in very terms. Needless to say that assessee shall be very much at liberty to have recourse of appropriate remedies available. Ordered accordingly. 5. This assessee’s miscellaneous application M.A.No.236/PUN./2023 is dismissed in above terms. 3 MA.No.236/PUN./2023 Order pronounced in the open Court on 19.03.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 19 th March, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.