M/s. Market Mover, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, TDS- 2, Baroda

MA 41/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2464 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUD ICIAL MEMBER M/S MARKET MOVER PROP. PARESH R SHAH, 136, WINDSOR PLAZA, R C DUTT ROAD, BARODA (APPELLANT) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-2, BARODA (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SMT. URVASHI SODHAN, A. R. REVENUE BY: SHRI M.K. SINGH, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-10-20 14 / ORDER PER : ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- BY THIS M.A., THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR RECALLIN G OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 668/AHD/2013 DATED 31/01/2014. 2. IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IT IS INTER A LIA SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF AHMEDABAD TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M.A. NO. 41/AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 668/AHD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 M.A NO. 41/AHD/2014 (IN I.T.A NO.668/AHD/2013) A. Y. 2003-04 PAGE NO M/S MARKET MOVER PROP. PARESH R. SHAH VS. ITO 2 WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, SMT. BEENABEN SHAH (ITA NO. 1 28/AHD/2013 ORDER DATED 26/07/2013) BUT THE SAME WAS OVERLOOKED AND R ELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HUTCHISON ESSAR TELECOM LTD (2010) 323 ITR 230 (DEL) THE MATT ER WAS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND DECIDE IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT. IT IS F URTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ARE E XACTLY SIMILAR TO THAT OF HIS WIFE, SMT. BEENABEN SHAH, THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN SIMILAR MANNER. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD A ND THEREFORE THE ORDER BE MODIFIED. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED TH AT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AND THUS OBJECTED TO THE P RAYER OF LD. AR. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT BEFORE US, ASSESSEE HAD RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. BEENABEN SHAH (SUPRA) BUT THE SAME WAS INADVERTENTLY OVERLOOKED AND THEREBY A MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER DATED 31/01/2014 (ITA NO. 668 /AHD/2013) IS RECALLED. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPE AL IN DUE COURSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 31/10/2014 A.K. M.A NO. 41/AHD/2014 (IN I.T.A NO.668/AHD/2013) A. Y. 2003-04 PAGE NO M/S MARKET MOVER PROP. PARESH R. SHAH VS. ITO 3 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,