ACIT (OSD) 4(1)(2), MUMBAI V. GILTEDGE FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, MUMBAI

MA 284/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6548 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 18-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPIKA ARORA LD
• Assessee Lawyers: PARVATHY GANESH LD

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI , '#& BEFORE HONBLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM M.A NO. 284/MUM/2016 [ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.7044/MUM/2006] ( ' ' ' ' (' (' (' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) ACIT (OSD) - 4(1)(2) ROOM NO. 636 AAYKAR BHAWAN M.K.ROAD MUMBAI 400 020 / VS. M/S. GILTEDGE FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES 103, LIBERTY APT. 80A, SAROJINI ROAD, VILE PARLE (W) MUMBAI-400 056. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AABCG-1699-K ( )* /APPELLANT ) : ( +)* / RESPONDENT ) & M.A NO. 285/MUM/2016 [ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.7045/MUM/2006] ( ' ' ' ' (' (' (' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01) ACIT (OSD) - 4(1)(2) ROOM NO. 636 AAYKAR BHAWAN M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 / VS. M/S. GILTEDGE CREDIT CAPITAL LTD. 103, LIBERTY APT. 80A, SAROJINI ROAD, VILE PARLE (W) MUMBAI-400 056. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAACG-2780-N ( )* /APPELLANT ) : ( +)* / RESPONDENT ) )*,-$ / APPELLANT BY : DEEPIKA ARORA, LD.AR +)*,-$ / RESPONDENT BY : PARVATHY GANESH, LD. DR ,./% / DATE OF HEARING : 11/01/2019 0!( ,./% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/01/2019 2 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER):- 1. BY WAY OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE R EVENUE SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF COMMON TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 28/10/ 2015. MA NO. 284/M/16 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7044/MUM/20 06] 2.1 THE LD. DR, MS. DEEPIKA ARORA, DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE APPLICATION, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NAMELY GILTEDGE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES WAS ASSESSED FOR AY 2002-03 AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS, WHICH REACHED UP-TO THE LEVEL OF TRIBUNA L VIDE ITA NO.7044/MUM/2006. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS DISMISSED B Y THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 12/12/2008 FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION . SUBSEQUENTLY, UPON ASSESSEES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ORDER WAS RECALLED VIDE MA NO. 110/MUM/2009 DATED 15/04/2009. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL AGAIN GOT DISMISSED FOR THE SECOND TIME FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION VIDE OR DER DATED 17/03/2011. 2.2 THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ANOTHER ORDER DATED 28/10/2015 HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN ALL THE ISSUES UNDER DISPUTE HAVE BEEN SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR RE-ADJUDIC ATION. THEREFORE, AS PER SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR, TWO ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIZ. FIRST ON 17/03/2011 & ANOTHER ON 28/10/2015, WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2.3 HOWEVER, LD. AR, MS. PARVATHY GANESH, POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDER DATED 17/03/2011 WAS RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR T HE SECOND TIME ALSO UPON ASSESSEES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION VIDE MA N O. 149/MUM/2012 ORDER DATED 10/08/2012, A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PL ACED ON RECORD. THE 3 LD. AR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DATED 2 8/10/2015 WAS VALID ORDER AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY RECTIFICATION ETC. 3. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, WE CONCUR WITH THE SUBMI SSIONS OF LD. AR. IT APPEARS THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 10/08/2012 RE CALLING THE ORDER FOR THE SECOND TIME HAS SKIPPED THE ATTENTION OF THE REVENU E. HENCE, THE ORDER UNDER QUESTION DO NOT REQUIRE ANY RECTIFICATION, IN ANY MANNER. 4. THE APPLICATION STANDS DISMISSED. MA NO. 285/M/16 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7045/MUM/20 06] 5.1 AGAINST THIS APPLICATION, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DATED 28/10/2015 REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION SINCE THE FACTS STATED IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DO NOT MATCH WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE FACT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2 000-01 WAS NUMBERED AS ITA NO. 4141/MUM/2012 WHICH WAS DISPOSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 19/05/2015 AND THEREFORE, THE SECOND ORDER DA TED 28/10/2015 WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5.2 THE LD. AR, AGAIN CLARIFIED THAT THE CONFUSION HAS ARISEN DUE TO WRONG MENTIONING OF ASSESSEES NAME IN ORDER DATED 28/10/ 2015. THE ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN RELATION TO ASSESSEE NAMELY THE GILTEDGE CREDIT CAPITAL LIMITED AND NOT IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSEE NAMELY GILTEDGE FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES. 5.3 UPON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, WE CONCUR WITH THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BY LD. AR. WE FIND INADVERTENT MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN WH ILE MENTIONING THE CORRECT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER DATED 28/10/2 015 AND THEREFORE, THE SAME REQUIRE CORRECTION. 4 5.4 ACCORDINGLY, THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN CAUSE- TITLE FOR ITA NO. 7045/MUM/2006 ORDER DATED 28/10/2015 MAY BE READ AS THE GILTEDGE CREDIT CAPITAL LIMITED AND NOT GILTEDGE FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES. THE STATED ORDER STANDS RECTIFIED, TO THAT EXTENT. WE HAVE ALREADY CORRECTED THE CAUSE-TITLE OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION IN THIS ORDER. 5.5 THE APPLICATION STANDS ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. CONCLUSION 6. MA NO. 284/MUM/2016 STANDS DISMISSED WHEREAS MA NO. 285/MUM/2016 STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH JAN, 2019 SD/- SD/- (C.N. PRASAD) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 11 TH JAN, 2019 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE / 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