Rakesh Kumar, Muktsar V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

MA 45/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4939 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 40A(3); 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. No. 45/Asr/2016 (Arising out of ITA No. 102/Asr/2014) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. CIT, Circle-II, Bathinda Vs. Sh. Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar, Green Park Colony, Muktsar [PAN: AOMPK 9209F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 25.03.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: By way of miscellaneous application, the Revenue has sought the rectification of the order dated 09.03.2016 passed in ITA No. 102/Asr/2014 for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The brief contention of the Revenue is that the said ITAT order was passed under covered judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh in the case of Gurdas Garg v. CIT, Bathinda in ITA No. 413 of 2014 related to addition u/s 40A(3) of the Act. The order of ITAT was passed in favour of the assessee. MA No. 45/Asr/2016 Asstt. CIT v. Rakesh Kumar 2 3. As per the Revenue, the ITAT Amritsar Bench allowed the assessee’s claim under Rule 6DD(j) but this Rule 6DD(j) was omitted from 25.07.1995 and accordingly this particular clause is not covering the assessee’s case. The Revenue filed a review petition against the order of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sh. Gurdas Garg before the Hon’ble Court which is still pending. 4. In consequence the review petition before the apex court, the Revenue filed miscellaneous application before the bench for the rectification the order u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. 5. We have considered the submission of Revenue which was filed on dated 19.06.2016. The issue was not agitated before the Bench during the hearing of appeal. The issue was covered by the jurisdictional High Court. Accordingly the ITAT passed the order by following the judicial discipline. The order of the Hon’able High Court is now subjudice and the review petition is under consideration of the Hon’able Court which is still pending. There is no mistake apparent from the record in the order of ITAT. We follow the direction made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (IT-4), Mumbai v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC). Accordingly the prayer of the Revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25 .03.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member MA No. 45/Asr/2016 Asstt. CIT v. Rakesh Kumar 3 *GP/Sr. PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order