SANJAY SALES CORPORATION, V. ADDL CIT RG 18(2),

MA 352/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2835 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEIL PHILIP
• Assessee Lawyers: H P MAHAJANI

Judgement Text

, , , , , ,, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI , , ! BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA. NO.352/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.750/MUM/2007) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 M/S SANJAY SALES CORPORATION ALTA BHAVAN, 532, S.B. MARG, DADAR, MUMBAI-400028 ' ' ' ' / VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-18(2), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012 ( ' %&' /ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAMFS3154P ' %&' ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) / // / ASSESSEE BY): SHRI H.P. MAHAJANI ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) / REVENUE BY SHRI NEIL PHILIP - DR ' ( '* / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 06/02/2015 + + + + ( '* /DATE OF ORDER 06/02/2015 + + + + / / / / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS BY THE ASSESSEE O N THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PRONOUNCED ON 23/09/2009 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 02/12/20 09. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SUFFER S FROM INADVERTENT MISTAKE, THEREFORE, NEEDS RECTIFICATION . OUR ATTENTION M/S SANJAY SALES CORPORATION 2 WAS INVITED TO GROUND NO.2 WITH RESPECT TO DEPB IN COME AT RS.1,19,67,955/- AS AGAINST RS.91,43,752/-, CREDITE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ACCOUNTS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI H.P. MAHAJANI, EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED AP PEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL AND VIDE GROUND NO. 2 BRINGING TO TAX AS DEPB WAS CHALLENGED . 2. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI NEIL PHILIP, LD.DR, DEF ENDED THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT IN THE ORDER BY SUBMITTING TH AT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ASSESS EE IS MERELY TRYING TO GET THE ORDER REVIEWED, WHICH IS NOT PERM ISSIBLE. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SO FAR AS, CONDON ATION OF DELAY IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L WAS PRONOUNCED ON 23/09/2009 AND WAS DISPATCHED BY THE REGISTRY OF THE TRIBUNAL ON 25/11/2009 AND THE ASSESSEE RECE IVED THE ORDER ON 27/11/2009, THEREFORE, THE DELAY IS CONDON ED. SO FAR AS, RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER IS CONCERNED, WE FIN D THERE IS INADVERTENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER AS GROUND NO.2 WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THUS, TO THIS LIMITED EXTENT, WE DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR FRESH HEA RING ONLY ON GROUND NO. 2 AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE. THE ASS ESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE BE INFORMED NEXT DATE OF HEARING. THUS , THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D TO THIS EXTENT. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. M/S SANJAY SALES CORPORATION 3 THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE FROM BOTH SIDES AT T HE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 06/02/2015. SD/- (RAJENDRA) SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; ,' DATED : 06/02/201 5 F{X~{T? P.S/. '.. + ( .'/ 0/1' + ( .'/ 0/1' + ( .'/ 0/1' + ( .'/ 0/1'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 23 / THE APPELLANT 2. .423 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 5 ( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 5 / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. /78 .'' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 89% : / GUARD FILE. +' +' +' +' / BY ORDER, 4/' .' //TRUE COPY// ; ;; ;/ // /< < < < (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI