DCIT CIEN CIR 23, V. HITESH S. MEHTA,

MA 271/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3281 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P DANIEL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI N.K . BILLAIYA, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 271 /MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I .T.A. NO . 9158 /MUM/ 2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1996 - 97 M.A. NO. 272 /MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I .T.A. NO. 207/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997 - 98 M.A. NO. 273 /MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I .T.A. NO. 9159/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998 - 99 M.A. NO. 274 /MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I .T.A. NO. 1671/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000 - 01 M.A. NO. 275 /MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I .T.A. NO.2171/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004 - 05 M.A. NO. 276 /MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I .T.A. NO.9160/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 M.A. NOS. 271 TO 276/M/2014 2 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23, MUMBAI / VS. SHRI HITESH S. MEHTA, MADHULI, DR. A.B. ROAD, WORLI, MUMBAI - 400 018 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABAPM 4491J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: DR. P. DANIEL / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH / DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 . 0 6 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 5 .0 6 .2015 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THESE SIX MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT. 29.11.2013 . THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER PERTAINING TO A.YRS 1996 - 97, 1997 - 98, 1998 - 99, 2000 - 01, 2004 - 05 & 2007 - 08. 2. THE SHORT GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL S AT PARA - 6 ON PAGE - 4 AND AT PARA - 7 ON PAGE - 5, A MISTAKE HAS CREPT WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD AND NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUES HAVE TO BE SET AS IDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE APPLICATION VIS - - VIS THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL , WHICH HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF THE IMPUGN ED APPEALS. WE FIND THAT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR HAS ARISEN M.A. NOS. 271 TO 276/M/2014 3 RESULTING INTO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. WE, THEREFORE, RECTIF Y THE SAID MISTAKE. THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE READ AS UNDER: GROUND NO. 4 IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE AFRESH. 5. WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS , ALL THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE ALLOWED. OR DER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 5 TH JUNE , 2015 . SD/ - SD/ - ( SANJAY GARG ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 5 TH JUNE , 2015 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI