आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, (CONDUCTEDTHROUGHEE-COURTATAHMEDABAD) BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER, And SHRISIDDHARTHANAUTIYAL,JUDICIALMEMBER, MANo.47/Rjt/2023 in आयकरअपीलसं./ITANo.31/RJT/2018 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt.Years:2014-2015 TheD.C.I.T, MorbiCircle, Morbi. Vs. M/sZealtopGranitoPvt.Ltd., SurveyNo.596, 8/ANationalHighway, OldGhuntuRoad, Morbi-363642. PAN:AAACZ3126B Revenueby:ShriR.KDoshi,AR Assesseeby:ShriAshishKumarPandey,Sr.DR सुिवाईकीतारीख /DateofHearing:05/01/2023 घोरणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:19/01/2023 आदेश /ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: TheassesseebywayofthisMiscellaneousApplicationisseeking rectificationintheorderoftheITAT,dated17/05/2023,onthereasoningthat thereisamistakeapparentfromtherecord. 2.Inthepresentcase,theadditionwasmadebytheAOforRs.3,60,58,494/- onaccountofsuppressionofsalesbywayofunderinvoicingwhichwasrestricted M.ANo.47/Rjt/2023 in ITANo.31/Rjt/2018 A.Y.2014-15 2 bytheLd.CIT(A)toRs.11,71,901/-only.AgainstthefindingoftheLd.CIT(A), therevenuefiledtheappeal,andtheassesseefiledtheCO.TheITAThas dismissedtheappealfiledbytherevenuewhereastheCOoftheassesseewas allowed.However,intheMAfiledbytherevenue,itwaspointedoutthatthere wascontradictoryfindingsintheorderoftheITAT,whichrequiretoberectified. Therelevantsubmissionofrevenueisreproducedasunder: ItishumblyinformedthattheHon’bleITATinitsorderinpara8.7heldthat: “ThuswedonotfindanyinfirmityintheorderoftheLd.CIT(A).Hence,thegroundofthe appealoftherevenueisherebydismissedandtheCOoftheassesseeisallowed.” ItishumblyinformedthattheHon’bleITAThasallowedcrossobjectionfiledbythe assesseeanddeletedadditionofRs.11,71,910/-whichmayupheldbytheLd.CIT(A).Thus, thedecisionisseemsascontradictoryonthisissueasononeendtoupheldtheorderof theLd.CIT(A)andontheotherendallowstheassessee’scrossobjectionanddeletedthe additionofRs.11,71,910/-.Thus,thiscaseisafitcasetothefileMAbeforeITAT. 3.Inviewoftheabove,theLd.DRrequestedtorectifytheorderpassedby theITATwithinthemeaningoftheprovisionofsection254(2)oftheAct.Onthe otherhand,theLd.ARcouldnotcontroverttheargumentadvancedbytheLd.DR fortherevenue. 4.Heardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthematerials availableonrecord.AsfarastheresultoftheappealandtheCOisconcerned, thereisnoambiguitythattherevenueappealwasdismissed,andtheCOofthe assesseewasallowed.However,wefindthattheITAThasobservedthatthereis noinfirmityintheorderoftheLd.CIT(A)whichimpliesthattheCOoftheassesee wasliabletobedismissed.Accordingly,wefindthattothisextentthereis contradictioninthefindingsoftheITATwhichneedstoberectifiedwithinthe provisionofsection254(2)oftheAct.Accordingly,wemodifytheparagraphNo. 8.7oftheorderoftheITATwhichisnowtobereadasunder: 8.7Atthisjuncture,itisequallyimportanttonotethattheamountofsalesandpurchases havebeendulyadmittedbytheVATandtheCentralExciseDepartmentwithoutpointing outanydiscrepancy.Itmeanstheamountofsalesdeclaredbytheassesseewasaccepted bytheotherGovernmentDepartments.Thus,wearereluctanttoaccepttheactionofthe M.ANo.47/Rjt/2023 in ITANo.31/Rjt/2018 A.Y.2014-15 3 AOthattheassesseewasengagedunderInvoicingofthesalesinthegivenfactsand circumstances.HencethegroundofappealoftherevenueisherebydismissedandtheCO oftheassesseeisallowed. 5.Inviewoftheabove,theMAfiledbytherevenueisherebyrectifiedtothe extentasindicatedabove. 6.Intheresult,theMiscellaneousApplicationfiledbytheRevenueisallowed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton19/01/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (SIDDHARTHANAUTIYAL)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated19/01/2024 Manish