Dilraj Sharma, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

MA 4/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2760 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 4/CHD/2015 IN ITA NO. 173/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI. DILRAJ SHARMA VS. THE ITO 530-C, URBAN ESTATE RANGE 1(1) JAMALPUR, PHASE I LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AMGPS4052C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARI OM ARORA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 13/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/03/2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THROUGH THIS MISC. APPLICATION ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT RECALLING OF THE ORDER OR MAKING SUITABLE AMENDMENTS IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 173/CHD/2014. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THIS APPEAL BY CONSIDERING THE NORMAL SIX GROUNDS. HE POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS VIDE APPLICATION DT. 17/03/2014 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. FURTHER ASSESSEE HAD FILED PAPER B OOK AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAS ALSO NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, AN ERROR HAS CREPT INTO THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AND THE ORDER NEED S TO BE RECALLED . 3. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THIS ISSUE AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES SINCE THE ISSUE WAS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WHICH HAS BEEN CITED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN 2 PARA 11. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AND ASSESSEE IS SEEKING THE REVIEW OF THE ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMIS SIBLE UNDER THE LAW . 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATE RIAL ON RECORDS WE FIND THAT TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE NORMAL GROUNDS AND THE APPEAL WAS ARGUED BY SOME OTHER COUNSEL DURING THE ORIGINAL HEARING O F THE APPEAL. AS FAR AS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE CONCERNED IT IS NORMAL PRAC TICE IN THE TRIBUNAL EITHER TO HEAR THE PARTIES OR TAKE THEIR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. NORMALLY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE NOT ENTERTAINED WHERE DETAILED ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE PARTIES. FURTHER AS FAR AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND PAPER BOOK IS CONCERNED THE SAME MUST HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BECAUSE TRIBUNAL HAS CONS IDERED ALL THE FACTS AND CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PARTIES AND ULTIMATELY IS SUE WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS COVERED BY THE EARLIER ORDER IN CASE OF SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 713/CHD/2010 AND ITA NO. 963/CHD/2010. B ECAUSE OF THIS FACT PARAGRAPH OF THIS ORDER WERE REPRODUCED AT PARA 9 A ND IT WAS ALSO NOTICED IN PARA 10 THAT THIS ORDER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE H ONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF BEST BUY COMMODITIES PVT. LTD . VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 122 OF 2014 (O&M) VIDE JUDGEMENT DATED DT. 12.05.2014. THEREFORE, CLEARLY THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER O F TRIBUNAL AND ASSESSEE IS MERELY SEEKING THE REVIEW OF THE ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE LAW. REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO CIT VS. JAGABANDHU ROUL, 1 45 ITR 153 AND SHEW PAPER EXCHANGE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, C WARD, DI STINCTION. V(1), CALCUTTA AND OTHERS, 93 ITR 186. 5. IN THE RESULT MISC. APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19/03/20 15 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 19/03/2015 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR