ITO, Jajpur Ward, Jajpur V. Pradeep Kumar Mohanty, Jajpur

MA 34/CTK/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3176 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RABI NARAYAN SWAIN

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक न्यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Miscellaneous Application No.34/CTK/2021 (Arising out of IT A No.279/CT K/2019) (नििाारण वषा / AY. :2014-2015) Pr.CIT, Cuttack Vs Pradeep Kumar Mohanty, Keruna, Chhatrapada, Pritipur, Jajpur PAN No. : BBTPM 1572 N (अऩीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधाारिती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Rabi Narayan Swain, AR िाजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR स ु नवाई की तािीख / Date of Hearing : 19/08/2022 घोषणा की तािीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/08/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per George Mathan, JM: This miscellaneous application is filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No.279/CTK/2019, dated 09.09.2020. 2. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that under similar circumstances the Tribunal has restored the issue in the order passed u/s.263 of the Act to the file of AO in the case of Sri Balarama Saha in ITA No.238/CTK/2019, dated 12.03.2021. It was the submission that in assessee’s case the Tribunal has quashed the order of the Pr.CIT passed u/s.263 of the Act on the ground that adequate time had not been granted to the assessee. It was the submission that this constituted an error in the order of the Tribunal insofar as on similar facts two different views have been taken. MA No.34/CTK/2021 2 3. In reply, ld. AR on behalf of the assessee submitted that the facts in both the cases are completely different. In case of Balarama Sha, ld. Pr.CIT has not granted the assessee adequate opportunity to produce all the details and evidence before him. It was his contention that this issue was restored to the file of AO. It was submitted that in assessee’s case adequate opportunity had not been granted to represent much less for producing the evidence. It was the submission that there is no mistake apparent from the order of the Tribunal, therefore, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue deserves to be dismissed. 4. We have considered rival submissions. As rightly pointed out by the ld. AR that the facts in assessee’s case are different from the facts emanating from the order of the Tribunal in the case of Balarama Sha referred supra. The revenue has also not able to point out any factual error in the order of the Tribunal dated 09.09.2020, which constitutes any mistake apparent from the said order. Therefore, we do not see any error in the order of the Tribunal and consequently the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue stands dismissed. 5. In the result, miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced and dictated in the open court on 19/08/2022. Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Sd/- (GEORGE MATHAN) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कटक Cuttack; ददनाांक Dated 19/08/2022 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. MA No.34/CTK/2021 3 आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशाि ु सार/ BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, कटक/ITAT, Cuttack 1. अऩीलाथी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- 3. आयकि आय ु क्त(अऩील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकि आय ु क्त / CIT 5. ववभागीय प्रनतननधध, आयकि अऩीलीय अधधकिण, कटक / DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. गार्ा पाईल / Guard file. सत्यावऩत प्रनत //True Copy//