ATUL SANGHVI, MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, MUMBAI

MA 304/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7830 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANT SAMAIYA
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & R.C. SHARMA, AM M.A. NO. 304 /MUM/201 7 (IN IT (SS) NO. 30/MUM/2011 ) BLOCK PERIOD : 2001 - 02 TO 2007 - 08 ) SHRI ATUL SANGHVI 1607B, SANKARSETT PALACE, NANA CHOWK, MUMBAI 400 007 VS. ASST. CIT CEN 1 MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AHZP52788A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) M.A. NO.305/MUM/2017 (IN IT(SS) NO. 29/MUM/2011) BLOCK PERIOD :2001 - 02 TO 2007 - 08) SHRI DILIP SHAH 401, SPENTA TOWERS, 55/57, FORGETT STREET GOWALIA TANK, MUMBAI 400 036 VS. ASST. CIT CEN 1 MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACWPS4146B ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAKESH JOSHI, ( AR ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI NISHANT SAMAIYA, (DR) / DATE OF HEARING : 10.08 .2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 .12 .2018 / O R D E R MA NO S . 304 & 305 /MUM/2017 2 PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : THESE MA S ARE ARISEN OUT OF THE IT (SS) NOS. 30&29/MUM/2011 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 2001 - 02 TO 2007 - 08 . 2. T HROUGH THESE MAS IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT IN PARA 6 OF THE ABOVE ORDER HONBLE BENCH HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BUT THERE IS NO FINDING THAT HOW THE ORDER OF A.O IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THEREFORE REQUIREMENT OF TWIN CONDITION TO BE SATISFIED TOGETHER DOES NOT EXIST. FURTHER, DECISION ON WHICH RELIANCE WAS PLA CED WAS NOT BEEN DISTINGUISHED IN THE ORDER. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING NOT ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR ONE OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED IN THE ORDER, HOWEVER THE SAID GROUND HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED IN T HE ORDER. 3. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE ARGUMENT THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT SHOULD BE RECALLED AND CANCELLED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND FOUND THAT VIDE ORDER DATED 16.01.2015, THE TRIBUNAL HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A ) U/S 263 OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL DEALT WITH EACH AND EVERY ISSUE AND FINALLY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE MA NO S . 304 & 305 /MUM/2017 3 A.O ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, ACCORDINGLY CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE A.O. THE TRIBUNAL HAVE DEALT WITH ALL THE ISSUE S AT PARAS 3 TO 8 AND AFTER CONSIDERING EACH ASPECT DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL U/S 25 4 (2) IS LIMITED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. HOWEVER TRIBUNAL HAVE NO POWER TO CHANGE THE CONCLUSION ALREADY ARRIVED AT . THE PRESENT PETITION CLEARLY REQUIRES CHANGE OF THE CONCLUSION ALREADY ARRIVED AT WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE MAS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27. 12 .2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( JOGINDER SINGH ) (R.C. SHARMA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 27 .12 .2018 K RAVI KUMAR ( P.S.) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//