MRS. MASUMA EQBAL HUSAIN RUPANI, Mumbai V. THE ITO 19-(3)(3), Mumbai

MA 25/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4793 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT RANADE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM M. A . N os . 2 5 to 2 8 /M u m /2 02 2 ( A r is in g ou t of M A N o s . 5 5 to 5 8/ M u m /2 0 21 ) (A s se s s m e n t Y e a r s : 19 96 - 9 7 , 1 99 7- 98 ) Masuma Iqbal Rupani R/o 10,Zarine Lodge, 3 rd Floor T.P.S IV, 4 th Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai-400 050 Vs . ITO-19(3)(3) 2 nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road Mumbai-400 007 PA N / G I R N o . A A C PR 76 2 4 K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ankit Ranade Respondent by : Shri Vimal Punmiya D at e o f H e a ri n g : 08.04.2022 Da t e o f P r o no un c e me nt : 08 .04.2022 Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: These are miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee against M.A order passed by the ITAT in M.A Nos. 55 to 58/Mum/2021 with respect to ITA Nos. 648 to 651/Mum/2004 for AYs 1996-97 & 1997-98, vide order dated 23.06.2021. 2. We note that section 254(2) of the Act provides as under:- “(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within six months from the end of the month in which the order was passed, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make such amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer : Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has given notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard” 2 V i l e P a r l e P r a r t h a n a C o - o p H s g . S o c . L t d . 3. From the above, it is evident that provision of u/s. 254(2) of the Act can be invoked only with respect to an order passed u/s. 254(1) of the I.T.Act. As evidently in this case, this application is with respect to an order passed u/s. 254(2). The same is not liable to be admitted. Against the same is dismissed as such. 4. In the result, these miscellaneous applications are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08.04.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Sandeep Singh Karhail) (Shamim Yahya) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai; Dated : 08 .04.2022 Thirumalesh , Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai