The Income tax Officer, Belgaum V. Sri Girish Prakash Vernekar, Belgaum

MA 4/PAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0683 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT RAJ SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: A S PATIL TAX CONSULTANT
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE THE HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI P.K. BANSAL & HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER, SHRI D.T. GARASIA M A NO. 04/PNJ /20 13 (IN ITA NO. 7/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 7/PNJ/2012) (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2(1), FEROZ KHIMJIBHAI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BELGAUM (APPELLANT) VS. SRI GIRISH PRAKASH VERNEKAR 264, MAHALSA KRUPA, SHASTRINAGAR, BELGAUM PAN : ADNPP5618F (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : AMRIT RAJ SINGH, DR RESPONDENT BY : A.S. PATIL, TAX CONSULTANT DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 /0 5 /2013 DATE OF ORDER : 14 / 06 /2013 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA : 1. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ISSUE OF URD PURCHASES WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY AO. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF I.T.A.T. THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) AS PURCH ASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,42,051/ - . THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT DISCUSSED ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS FILED FOR REVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDI NG THE ISSUE RELATING TO URD PURCHASES, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO DISCUSS REGARDING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40A(3). THEREFORE, JUDGEMENT PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE REVIEWED. 2 M.A NO. 4/PNJ/2013 (IN ITA NO. 7/PNJ/2012 & CO NO. 7/PNJ/2012) (ASST. YEAR : 2008 - 09) 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING AT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN ITA NO. 7/PNJ/2012 AND CO NO. 7/PNJ/2012 DT. 20.4.2012. IN OUR OPINION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN JUDGMENT . THEREFORE, THIS APPLICATION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS POWER TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT ON RECORD AND THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISM ISSED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14 / 06 /2013. SD/ - SD/ - (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI DATE : 14 / 06 /2013 *SSL* COPY TO : 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT CONCERNED 4) CIT(A) 5) DR 6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PANAJI, GOA