LAQSHYA MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) 2(1), MUMBAI

MA 398/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5574 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SRIRAM
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJAT MITTAL

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -ABENCH MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH,JUDICIAL MEMBER AN D RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MA NO.398//MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF / ITA /1297/MUM/2014- /AY.-2000-01 LAQSHYA MEDIA PVT LTD, LAQSHYA HOUSE NET TO RAMESHWER TEMPLE SARASWATI BAUG, SOCIETY ROAD, JOGESHWARI (EAST), MUMBAI -400 080 PAN: AAACL 5004 C VS. DCIT(TDS)-2(1), R. NO.702, 7TH FLOOR, SMT. K G MITTAL AYURVEDIC HOSPITAL BLDG., CHARNI RD., MUMBAI -400 002 ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI S SRIRAM ASSESSEE BY: SH.RAJAT MITTAL / DATE OF HEARING: 18.08.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.10.2017 / ORDER / PER RAJENDRA, AM - VIDE ITS APPLICATION ,DTD. 25.11.2016 THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL FOR THE ABOVE REFERRED ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y. ) ON 27/05/2016,THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,THAT SAME WER E TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT,THAT WHILE DECIDING THE A PPEAL,FILED BY THE AO,THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF FACTS,THAT IN PURSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE AO HAD PASSED THE ORDER T HAT IS IDENTICAL TO THE ORIGINAL ORDER THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US THE AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE APPLICATION AND THE DR STAT ED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,THAT ASSESSEE WANTED THE TRIBUNAL TO R EVIEW ITS ORDER,THAT REVIEW WAS NOT PERMITTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2)OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD.WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES HAD REM ITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION.THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY LOOK IN TO THE NATURE OF EXPENSES AND TO FIND AS TO WHETHER THE CONTENTION RAISED BY IT ABOUT THE NA TURE OF EXPENSES WAS FACTUALLY CORRECT.IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IF CLAIM WAS FOUND CORRECT TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE AO HAD TO TREATED AS DISMISSED.IN OUR OPINION,THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL.THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM AND THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CORRECT NESS OF THE CLAIM. ANY DIRECTION BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF A CLAIM CANNOT BE TREATED A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD.THEREFORE,WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DIS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH ,OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( / MAHAVIR SINGH ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED :13.10.2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI. DATE INITIALS INITIAL 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON-DICTATION SHEETS ATTACHED/DIR ECT ON PC /10/2017 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR /10/2017 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 3/10/2017 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. FOR SIGNATUR E OF THE ORDER 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER