M/s Chandrakala Bhatia , Bangalore V. Income TAx Officer Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

MA 305/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5954 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SANDEEP GOEL
• Assessee Lawyers: B SUDHEENDRA
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SM C BENCH C : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MP NO.305/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NO. 1136/BANG/2017 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 10 SMT. CHANDRAKALA BHATIA, NO. 104, 7 TH MAIN ROAD, 4 TH BLOCK, 3 RD STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 079. PAN: ABIPB 8484E VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6 (2) (1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B. SUDHEENDRA, CA REVENUE BY : DR. SANDEEP GOEL, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 22 .1 2 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .1 2 .2017 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER; THIS M.P. IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT ONE APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ITA NOS. 1135 & 1136/BAN G/2017 DATED 04.08.2017. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED IN THE MP THAT IN PARA NO. 3 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, A WORD NOT IS MISSING IN THE FOURTH LINE BETWEEN TW O WORDS WAS AND DECIDED. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE ME, THE SAME CONTEN TIONS WERE REPEATED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUBMITTED TH AT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND I FI ND THAT IN FACT, THERE IS A TYPING MISTAKE IN THE FOURTH LINE OF PARA NO. 3 OF THE IMP UGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER BECAUSE A WORD NOT IS MISSING BETWEEN TWO WORDS WAS AND DECIDED. HENCE, I HOLD THAT THE PARA NO. 3 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER SHOULD BE REPLACED BY THE FOLLOWING PARA:- MP NO.305/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NO. 1136/BANG/2017) PAGE 2 OF 2 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT IN A. Y. 2009 - 10, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE REGARDING VA LIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT (A) AND THE REL EVANT GROUNDS ARE REPRODUCED BY CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER BUT THIS ISS UE WAS NOT DECIDED BY CIT (A). HENCE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION BECA USE IF A TECHNICAL OBJECTION IS RAISED THEN BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERIT, THE TECHNICAL ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED FIRST. THE LEARNE D CIT (A) SHOULD FIRST DECIDE THE ISSUE ABOUT VALIDITY OF REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE SAME ARE NOT VALID THEN NO DEC ISION ON MERIT IS REQUIRED BUT IF THE SAME IS FOUND VALID THEN THE IS SUE ON MERIT SHOULD BE DECIDED AFRESH. NEEDLESS TO SAY, ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF HEARING SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO BOTH SIDES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MP FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 22 ND DECEMBER, 2017. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.