I.T.O., Ward-1(2), Gwalior V. Shri Palvinder Singh Sandhu, Gwalior

MA 24/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7637 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOHAIL AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V BAPNA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI A. L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 24/AGRA/2011 (IN ITA NO. 372/AGRA/2009) ASST. YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI PALVINDER SINGH SANDHU, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER, PROP. M/S. SANDHU FREIGHT CARRIERS, 1(2), GWALIOR . DREAM COMPLEX, TRANSPORT NAGAR, GWALIOR. (PAN : ARMPS 7589R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. BAPNA, C.A. REVENUE BY : SHRI SOHAIL AKHTAR, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 16.03.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.03.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DECIDED VIDE ORDER D ATED 30.06.2011. THE REVENUE RAISED GROUND NO. 1 WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.4,54,322/- BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THIS GROUND WAS DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER AND BY GIVING REASONS FOR DECISION, GROUND NO. 1 WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT TIME THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF RS.4,54,322/- AND GIVING NAM ES OF CREDITORS, THEIR ADDRESS M.A. NO. 24/AGRA/2011 2 AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS ETC. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY SHOULD NOT HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, HIS ORDER WAS RE VERSED AND ORDER OF ASSESSING WAS UPHELD. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVITS OF SEVERAL PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE ALONG W ITH MISC. APPLICATION CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTIONS ON THIS ISSUE. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT EARLIER COUNSEL HAS COMMITTED A BONA FIDE MISTAKE. THEREFORE, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED. 3. ACCORDING TO SECTION 254(2), THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER, WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, AMEND THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALRE ADY PASSED U/S. 254(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SOUGHT TO RELY UPON THE AFFIDAVITS OF SEVERAL PARTIES, WHI CH WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. THEREFOR E, THESE AFFIDAVITS CANNOT BE TREATED AS PART OF THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. SINC E NEW EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AT THIS STAGE, WE DO NOT FIND IF THERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. THERE IS NO BONA FIDE MISTA KE COMMITTED BY THE EARLIER M.A. NO. 24/AGRA/2011 3 COUNSEL WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AS HE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE REQUISITE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE EARLIER COUNSEL ARE BASELESS A ND REJECTED. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS, THUS, DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MA IS DISMISSED. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.03.2012 . SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY