Shri Kaushal Sethi, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

MA 349/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9333 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK SEHGAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A NO.349/DEL/2011 (ITA NO.5360/D/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 SHRI KAUSHAL SETHI, DU-18, PITAMPURA, DELHI. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 25 (1), NEW DELHI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI SHAILESH GUPTA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK SEHGAL, SR. DR O R D E R PER A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.5360/DEL/2010, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WAS ALLOWED AND THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 5252/DEL/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WAS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOU S VIDE ORDER DATED 09.09.2011. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CON TENDED THAT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER, A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN INASMUCH AS IN PARA 10 OF OUR SAID ORDER, WE HAVE WRONGLY EXTRACTED THE PORTI ON OF PARA 3 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER, TAKING IT TO BE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A); THAT THE SAID EXTRACTED PORTION OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER I S, IN FACT, NOT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A), BUT THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER, WHEREAS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A) ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 2.7 AT PAGE 3 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER. THIS PA RA 2.7 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER HAS MA NO.349/DEL/2011 2 BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 3 OF THE APPLICATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE US, HAS REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLI CATION. 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THA T THERE IS NO ERROR APPARENT FROM RECORD IN OUR ORDER DATED 09.09.2011. HE HAS, AS SUCH, REQUESTED THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND WE FIND THAT T HERE IS NO ERROR APPARENT FROM RECORD IN OUR ORDER DATED 09.09.2011. IN THE OPENING PORTION OF THE PARA 10 OF OUR ORDER, WE HAVE OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- THE ISSUE, IT IS SEEN, WAS SPECIFICALLY RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT IN P ARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE ASSESS EES CONTENTIONS IN THIS REGARD. THE RELEVANT PORTION THEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS : .. 5. NOW, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE AFORE-EXTRACTED PORT ION OF PARA 10 OF OUR ORDER, WE HAVE MERELY STATED THAT IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN PARA 3 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER, THE CIT (A) HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS. 6. IN THE SUCCEEDING PORTION OF PARA 10 OF OUR ORDE R, WE HAVE REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT PORTION OF PARA 3 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER. THE FIRST SENTENCE THEREOF IS AS FOLLOWS:- 3. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLAN T HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. 7. AS SUCH, IN THE SECOND SENTENCE OF PARA 10 OF OU R ORDER, AS EXTRACTED ABOVE, WE HAVE REITERATED WHAT THE CIT (A) HAS SAID IN THE FIRST SENTENCE OF PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER. MA NO.349/DEL/2011 3 8. NOW, THE ASSESSEES GRIEVANCE IN THE PRESENT APP LICATION IS THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 2.7 AT PAGE 3 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER AND NOT IN PARA 3 (AT PAGE 4) THEREOF; AND THAT THIS IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE. HOWEVER, AS DISCUSSED ABO VE, THIS IS NOT THE CASE. TO REITERATE, IN THE SECOND SENTENCE OF PARA 10 OF OUR ORDER, WE HAVE NOT MENTIONED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A). RATHER, WHAT WE HAVE OBSERVED IS THAT IN PARA 3 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS . THAT BEING SO, THERE IS NO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR I N THE PORTION OF OUR ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED IN QUEST ION BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS ALLOWE D AND SO, NON-MENTION IN OUR ORDER ALL THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO LEADING TO AN INFERENCE THAT SUCH SUBMISS IONS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY US. ON THIS SCORE TOO, NO ERROR APPARENT FROM RECORD HAS OCCURRED IN OUR ORDER. 10. FOR THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, FINDING NO MERIT THER EIN, THE GRIEVANCE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26. 10.2012. SD/- SD/- [J.S. REDDY] [A.D. JAIN] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 26.10.2012. DK MA NO.349/DEL/2011 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES