Sumit Kumar Mitra, Hooghly V. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Hooghly, Hooghly

MA 49/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7247 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K PRAMANIK

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH B, KOLKATA () BEFORE . .. . , , , , !, SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ' ' ' ' /AND . .. .#$ #$#$ #$. .. . , %& ! SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % % % % MA NO . 49/KOL/2011 '' '' '' '' / ITA NO.2166/KOL/2010 () *+/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 (-. / APPELLANT ) SUMIT KUMAR MITRA, HOOGHLY - - - VERSUS - . (01-./ RESPONDENT ) I.T.O., WARD-2(2), HOOGHLY. (PAN: AEDPM 6299 Q) -. 2 3 %/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI SOMNATH GHOSH 01-. 2 3 %/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI A.K.PRAMANIK 4 2 $& /DATE OF HEARING : 21.10.2011. 5* 2 $& /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.11.2011. %6 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. .#$ #$#$ #$. .. . ) )) ), , , , %& ! PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.2166/KOL/20010 DATED 1 1.02.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARIN G ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE BY REFERRING TO PARA NO.8 OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIO N SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C. I.T. VS INDIA STEAMSHIP CO.LTD. [SUPRA] CITED AT BAR BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI VE WAS NOT CONSIDERED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED TO RECALL THE ORDER OF TRIBU NAL IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1. 2 3. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE BY REFERRING TO THE TRIBUNALS ORDER AT PARAS 3,4 AND 5 SUBMITTE D THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY TRIBUNAL AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOUS JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE CASE O N WHICH THE LD. COUNSEL PLACED RELIANCE WAS IN FACT FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND LD . DR COULD NOT POINT OUT WHETHER THE CASE REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS B EEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL OR NOT. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SINCE THE TRI BUNAL HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT WHICH WAS QUOTED BEFORE THE SAME AND COMING TO THE CONCLUSION, IN OUR CONSI DERED OPINION, THIS WILL TANTAMOUNT THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEREF ORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE RECALL GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL VIDE IT A NO.2166/KOL/2010. ACCORDINGLY THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE HEARING IN DUE COURSE. 5. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11.11.2011. SD/- SD/- . .. . , , , , ( ( ( ( ! N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .#$ #$#$ #$. .. . , , , , %& !, C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( ($& $& $& $&) )) ) DATE: 11.11.2011. %6 2 0(( 7%*8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI SUMIT KUMAR MITRA, VILL.SRIPUR, P.O.SRIPUR BAZ AR, P.S.BALAGARH, DIST.HOOGHLY, PIN: 712514. 2 I.T.O., WARD-2(2), HOOGHLY. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 1 0(/ TRUE COPY, %6/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES R.G.(.P.S.) 3