SANJAY B. CHAWARE, V. ITO 18(2)(2),

MA 405/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1442 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DANJEEV JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: UPENDRA SHAH

Judgement Text

E IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI .. , . ... BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM 405/ MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1357/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) MR. SANJAY B. CHAWARE, FLAT NO. 12, 2 ND FLOOR, BHUPAT BHAVAN, D.S. BABREKAR MARG, (ASH LANE), DADAR (W), MUMBAI -400 028. / VS. ITO 1 8 ( 2 )( 2 ), MUMBAI. . / PAN : ADAPC2604D ( ) / APPLICANT ) .. ( *+) / RESPONDENT ) ) , / APPLICANT BY : SHRI UPENDRA SHAH *+) , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DANJEEV JAIN , / DATE OF HEARING : 10-01-2014 , / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-01-2014. / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKES ALLEGED TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15-10-2013 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1357/MUM/2012. 2. AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT MIS C. APPLICATION AND FURTHER REITERATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT T HE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE LETTER DATED 12-8-2013 AND THE FACTS STATED THEREIN HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WH ILE DECIDING THE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST T HE ASSESSEE. IT IS CONTENDED THAT SUCH NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FACTS STATED THEREIN HAS GIVEN RISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE MA 405/MUM/2013 2 TRIBUNAL DATED 15-10-2013 (SUPRA) WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED BY RECALLING THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON GROUND NO. 2 & 3. 3. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY T HE TRIBUNAL ON MERIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SUBMISSION AND FACTS OF TH E CASE AND NON-CONSIDERATION OF SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS, IF ANY, RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MISTA KE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT MISC. APPLIC ATION. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ALTHOUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER LET TER DATED 12-8-2013 ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH WAS SPECIFICALLY DRAWN TO THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OR TO ANY PARTICULA R FACTS STATED THEREIN. IN FACT, THE MATTER WAS ARGUED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY HIM AS NOTED IN THE LOG BOOK, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WERE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE NOTINGS MADE IN THE LO G BOOK ALSO DO NOT SHOW OR EVEN INDICATE THAT A REFERENCE WAS MADE BY THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED UNDER LETTER DATED 12-8-2013 OR T O ANY PARTICULAR FACTS MENTIONED THEREIN. THERE IS ALSO NO MARKING OR NOTING MADE O N THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO INDICATE THAT ATTENTION OF THE BENCH WAS INVITED TO THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. EVEN OTHERWISE, AS RIGHTLY C ONTENDED BY THE LD. D.R., NON- CONSIDERATION OF ANY ARGUMENT RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL WHEREBY THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF ON MERIT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE SAME. MA 405/MUM/2013 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6 86 , ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-01-2014. . , < = 22-01-2014 , SD/- SD/- (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ( P.M. JAGTAP ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; = DATED 22-01-2014. .../ RK , SR. PS ' #%& '& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ) / THE APPELLANT 2. *+) / THE RESPONDENT. 3. E () / THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 4. E / CIT CONCERNED 5. *I , I , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI E BENCH 6. 8 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, + * //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI