Dy. Commissioner OF Income Tax, Central Circle -1, Nashik V. Smt. Vandana Sanjay Kotecha, Jalgaon

MA 38/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4816 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No.38/PUN/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.437/PUN/2016 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Central Circle- 1, Nashik. Vs. Smt. Vandana Sanjay Kotecha, 4, Sagar Society, Vardhaman Nagar, Jalgaon- 425002. PAN : AGVPK7743Q Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This present Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the Department seeking rectification of the order passed by this Tribunal in ITA No.437/PUN/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13 dated 27.09.2018 on the ground that the Tribunal while granting relief on account of levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) wrongly applied the ratio of the decision of the Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee by : None Date of hearing : 01.04.2022 Date of pronouncement : 07.04.2022 MA No.38/PUN/2019 2 Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT vs. Radha Kishan Goel, 278 ITR 454 (All.-HC), which is rendered in the context of provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. When the Miscellaneous Petition was called on, none appeared on behalf of the assessee company despite due service of notice. 3. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submits that the Tribunal while directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty u/s 271AAA wrongly applied the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Radha Kishan Goel (supra) and, therefore, the order passed by this Tribunal should be recalled. 4. After hearing the ld. Sr. DR, we are of the considered opinion that mere wrong application of ratio of the decision of the High Court even admitting for a moment that the Tribunal had wrongly applied ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Radha Kishan Goel (supra), it does not give rise to the mistake apparent from the record capable being rectified under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the present Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. MA No.38/PUN/2019 3 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 07 th day of April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 07 th April, 2022. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-12, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT, Central, Nagpur. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “B” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.