G S Manohar , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(2)(4), Bangalore

MA 32/BANG/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0470 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KRISHNA UPADHYA
• Section: 254(2); 12; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [ M P NO. 32 /B ANG /20 20 (IN ITA NO. 358 /B ANG /20 1 9 )] (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 1 - 1 2 ) SHRI. G. S. MANOHAR , 31/B, MOOKAMBIKA LAYOUT, SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD, UTTARAHALLI, BENGALURU 560 061. PAN : A CJPM 4087 A APPLICANT VS. THE ITO, WARD - 3(2)(4), BENGALURU . RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI. KRISHNA UPADHYA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. GANESH R. GHALE , STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 12 / 0 6 /20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 / 0 6 /20 20 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, AM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION (MP) IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS CONTENDED IN THIS MP THAT GROUND NOS.3 AND 4 WERE NOT DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PER THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER AND THIS IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT AND THE TECHNICAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUNDS 2, 3 AND 4 WERE NOT DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS AGAINST THIS, LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER MP NO. 32/BANG/2020 (IN ITA NO.358/BANG/2019) PAGE 2 OF 2 BECAUSE IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS STATED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT EVERY ISSUE IS LEFT OPEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND I FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE I FIND THAT IN FACT AS PER THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE ISSUE ON MERIT ONLY HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OR DECISION REGARDING THE TECHNICAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NOS.2, 3 AND 4. REGARDING THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE THAT AS PER PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS LEFT THE ISSUES OPEN, I FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS LEFT EVERY ISSUE OPEN REGARDING MERIT OF THE ADDITION AND NOT REGARDING TECHNICAL ASPECT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS PER GROUND NOS.2, 3 AND 4. HENCE, I RECALL THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DECIDING GROUND NOS.2, 3 AND 4. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THIS APPEAL FOR HEARING FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE IN REGULAR COURSE AND NOTICE SHOULD BE ISSUED TO BOTH SIDES. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A. K. GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE DATED : 19/06/2020 /NS/* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE