ITO, Faridabad V. Smt. Santosh Raghav, Faridabad

MA 345/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0383 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHIDELHI DELHI ‘ ‘‘ ‘FRIDAY BENCH FRIDAY BENCHFRIDAY BENCH FRIDAY BENCH- -- -G GG G’ ’’ ’ : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI: NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENTPRESIDENT PRESIDENT AND AND AND AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANTSHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBERMEMBER MEMBER Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Miscellaneous Application No Application NoApplication No Application No. .. .345/Del/2017 345/Del/2017345/Del/2017 345/Del/2017 (I (I(I (In ITA No.3442/Del/2010 n ITA No.3442/Del/2010n ITA No.3442/Del/2010 n ITA No.3442/Del/2010) )) ) Assessment Ye Assessment YeAssessment Ye Assessment Yea aa ar : 2 r : 2r : 2 r : 2007 007007 007- -- -08 0808 08 Smt. Santosh Raghav, Smt. Santosh Raghav,Smt. Santosh Raghav, Smt. Santosh Raghav, Prop : M/s Akaar Fabrications & Prop : M/s Akaar Fabrications & Prop : M/s Akaar Fabrications & Prop : M/s Akaar Fabrications & Engineers, Plot No.326, Engineers, Plot No.326,Engineers, Plot No.326, Engineers, Plot No.326, Sector SectorSector Sector- -- -24, Faridabad. 24, Faridabad.24, Faridabad. 24, Faridabad. PAN : ACEPR6793H. PAN : ACEPR6793H.PAN : ACEPR6793H. PAN : ACEPR6793H. Vs. Vs.Vs. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer,Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Officer, Ward WardWard Ward- -- -11(1), 11(1),11(1), 11(1), Faridabad. Faridabad.Faridabad. Faridabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None. Respondent by : Shri Kanv Bali, Senior DR. Date of hearing : 02.08.2024 02.08.202402.08.2024 02.08.2024 Date of pronouncement : 07.08.2024 07.08.202407.08.2024 07.08.2024 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER Per Saktijit Dey, Vice Per Saktijit Dey, Vice Per Saktijit Dey, Vice Per Saktijit Dey, Vice President PresidentPresident President : :: : This is an Application by the assessee seeking rectification/recall of the Order dated 25 th April, 2017 passed in ITA No.3442/Del/2010. 2. When the matter was called out, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On perusal of the record, it is observed that the present Miscellaneous Application was filed by the assessee on 30 th May, 2017. For the first time, it was fixed for hearing on 12 th April, 2019. Thereafter, it was listed for hearing on numerous occasions till 2 nd August, 2024. However, not even on a single date, the assessee has either appeared or sent any response to the hearing notices. These facts show complete lack of interest on the part of the assessee to pursue the present Application. Since more than sufficient opportunity has already been granted to the assessee, we proceed to dispose of the Application ex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned DR. M.A. No.345/Del/2017 2 3. Heard learned DR and perused the materials on record. On going through the contents of the Miscellaneous Application, it is observed that the assessee has made an attempt to find mistake apparent on the face of the record insofar as the decision of the Tribunal qua Ground No.2 and 3 raised by the Revenue in its Appeal. It is the say of the assessee that the Tribunal should not have decided these issues in the manner it has decided. The assessee has not established whether the decision-making process of the Tribunal falls in the category of mistake apparent on the face of the record as envisaged under Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Merely because the decision of the Tribunal is not to the liking of the assessee, it cannot be considered as mistake on the face of record. It is evident that the present Application has been filed by the assessee seeking review of the earlier decision in the garb of rectification. This, in our view, is impermissible. Therefore, the present Application, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. However, in paragraph 14 of the appellate order, there is a minor typographical error. The figure of Rs.1,02,13,212/- should be read as Rs.1,04,19,891/-. With the aforesaid observations, the Application is dismissed. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. Above decision was pronounced in the open Court on 7 th August, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( (( (SHAMIM YAHYA SHAMIM YAHYASHAMIM YAHYA SHAMIM YAHYA) )) ) (SAKTIJIT DEY (SAKTIJIT DEY(SAKTIJIT DEY (SAKTIJIT DEY) )) ) ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MEMBERMEMBER MEMBER VICE VICE VICE VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENTPRESIDENT PRESIDENT VK. Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant. 2. Respondent. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar