DHARMIK EXIM PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9(1), MUMBAI

MA 262/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6633 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NOS. 262 & 269/MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT ITA NOS. 232 & 151/MUM/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01) M/S. DHARMIK EXIM P. LTD. 106, RUBY INDUSTRIES ESTATE CHINCHOLI BUNDER ROAD EXTN. OFF LINK ROAD, MALAD (W) MUMBAI 400064 VS. D C I T - 9(1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 PAN AAACD3656N APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY: MS. KRIPA P. TOPRANI RESPONDENT BY: MS. N. HEMALTHA DATE OF HEARING: 16.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.05.2018 O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, AM THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECTIFY AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 19 TH AUGUST, 2015, ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 232 & 151/MUM/2009. 2. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED A.R. THAT THE AFFIDAVI T OF SHRI GUL MELWANI, DIRECTOR OF THE APPLICANT WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WAS REPRODUCED BY THE HON'BLE TRI BUNAL IN THE SAID ORDER DATED 19.08.2015. IN THE SAID ORDER THE RELEV ANT PORTION CONSISTING OF PARAS 6.1, 6.2, 5A AND PART OF 5B HAVE BEEN INADVER TENTLY REPRODUCED WHICH WAS NEVER PART OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD AND FOUND THAT PARAS 6.1, 62, 5A AND 5B HAD BEEN INADVERTENTLY MA NOS. 262 & 269/MUM/2017 M/S. DHARMIK EXIM P. LTD 2 REPRODUCED. ACCORDINGLY WE EXPUNGE PARAS 6.1, 62, 5 A AND 5B OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 4. MOREOVER, PARA 6 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER SHOULD BE R EAD AS UNDER: - DURING THE COURSE OF 2 ND ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE 2 ND RESPONDENT, THE APPELLANTS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI VE VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 24.12.2007 (EXHIBIT D PAGE 60 TO 71 OF THE APPEAL PAPER BOOK) FURNISHED TO THE 2 ND RESPONDENT CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE SAID PARTIES ALONGWITH THEIR PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMB ERS WHICH WERE WRITTEN IN HAND. HOWEVER, 2 ND RESPONDENT DID NOT CONSIDER THE SAID CONFIRMATION LETTERS EVEN THOUGH HE PASSED THE ORDE R ON THE SAID DATE AS A RESULT WHEREOF, HE AGAIN MADE ADDITION IN RESP ECT OF THE SAID PURCHASES. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH MAY, 2018. SD/ - SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 7 TH MAY, 2018 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -20, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - XII, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, D BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.