GODREJ & BOYCE MAFG. CO. LTD., MUMBAI V. ACIT - 10(2), MUMBAI

MA 239/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5133 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NITESH JOSH
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Change of opinion
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

,' INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI- G,BENCH , , BEFORE S/SH. JOGINDER SINGH,JUDICIAL MEMBE R & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.239/MUM/2016( ARISING OUT OF ITA/1402/MUM/2011 , AY : 2004-05) GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO.LTD. PIROJSHAH NAGAR,VIKHROLI,MUMBAI-79. PAN:AAACG 1395 D VS. ACIT-10(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT) REV ENUE BY: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR- (DR) ASS ESSEE BY: SHRI NITESH JOSH -(AR) / DATE OF HEARING: 14.10.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09/12/2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA A.M. - VIDE ITS APPLICATION,DATED 22.07.2016,THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS STATED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13.04.2 016,THAT SAME WERE TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT,THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE RE-OPENING STATING THAT ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED BECAUSE OF CHANGE OF OPINION,THAT THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE APPEAL HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BEYOND A PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR,THAT T HE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADJUDICATE GROUND NO.1.0 , 1.1 AND 1.2,THAT IT HAD ALSO NOT DECIDED T HE GROUND NO.4 AND 5 OF THE APPEAL. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)MADE THE SAME SUBMISSION THAT WERE PART OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR)LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. 3. WE NOTICE THAT SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CORRECT,THAT THOUGH THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE CERTAIN GROUNDS R EMAINED UNADJUDICATED,THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE.CONSIDER ING THE ABOVE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR RECALLING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 13.04.2016.THEREFORE, CONSIDER -ING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE WE DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO RE-FIX THE MATTER, SO THAT IT COULD BE HEARD AFRESH BY THE REGULAR BEN CH. AS A RESULT,MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED . . MA-239/M/16-GODREJ & BOYCE-A RISING OUT OF ITA NO.1402/M/2011 2 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH DECEMBER, 2016. 9 ,2016 SD/- SD/ - ( /JOGINDER SINGH) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 09.12.2016 JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . 6. GUARD FILE/ . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.