Shri Yogenbhai Bhalabhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Ahmedabad

MA 36/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2214 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND SR DR

Judgement Text

, , , , D, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, D BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA NO.36/AHD/2014 IN ITA NO.757/AHD/2013 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2009-2010] SHRI YOGENBHAI BHALABHAI PATEL SHREE LEKHA BHAVAN, PALDI GAM PALDI, AHMEDABAD 380 007. /VS. ITO, WARD-11(2) AHMEDABAD. ( (( (-. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) 1& 2 3 )/ ASSESSEE BY : SMT.URVASHI SODHAN + 2 3 )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI ROOP CHAND, SR.DR 5 2 &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 1 ST AUGUST, 2014. 678 2 &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/08/2014 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: BY THIS M.A., THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THIS CASE FOR A.Y.2009-2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.757/AHD/2013 DATED 1 8.10.2013. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSEESEE HAS REITERA TED THE CONTENTS OF THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AN D HAS REQUESTED THAT THE MA NO.36/AHD/2014 -2- ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED AND INSTEAD O F SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO ORDER, THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN RELIEF AT THE STAGE OF THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF. SHE SUBMITTED TH AT THE TDS CERTIFICATES WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO, AND COPIES THEREOF WERE F ILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO. 3. THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MI STAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND IT IS A CA SE WHERE MERELY THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO AND NO SERI OUS PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ANY INTE RFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHALL AMOUNT TO REVIEW BY THE TRIBUNAL , WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PE RUSED THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD DATED 18.10.2013 AND ALSO CONTE NTS OF THE MA PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUN AL HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS ISSUE, AND HAS REST ORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CONTENTS OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BEFORE U S AND VERIFY THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES SON AS WELL AS THE ASSESSE E ON THE BASIS OF THE TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S. BPCL WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUSTED IN THE NEXT MONTH. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE REQUIRES VERIFICATIO N AT THE STAGE OF THE AO ITSELF, AND THIS VERIFICATION EXERCISE MAY NOT BE J USTIFIED AT THE STAGE OF SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY I.E. TRIBUNAL. IT IS WE LL SETTLED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER, AS HELD BY TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING C O., [1993] 203 ITR MA NO.36/AHD/2014 -3- 0497 (BOM). ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO M ERIT IN THE MA PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MA PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD