A.C.I.T 1(1), Jabalpur V. Shri Neel kanth Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Jabalpur

MA 5/JAB/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0615 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEERJA PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G N PUROHIT
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH , JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI NRS GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SAN JAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.05/JAB/2015 (IN ITA NO.44/JAB/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96 DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), JABALPUR VS. NEEL KANTH LAXMI PRASAD MAJHOLI, TEHSIL SIHORA, DISTT. JABALPUR. [PAN: ALKPS 9505K] (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) MA NO.06/JAB/2015 (IN ITA NO.102/JAB/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96 DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), JABALPUR VS. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, MAJHOLI, TEHSIL SIHORA, DISTT. JABALPUR. [PAN: NOT AVAILABLE] (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT. NEERJA PRADHAN, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI G. N. PUROHIT, SR. ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 16/02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/02/2021 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS A SET OF TWO MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS BY TH E REVENUE, DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) DATED 19.02.2015 BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT TO THE CAPTIONED APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 1995-96. MA NOS. 05 & 06/JAB/2015 (AY 1995-96) DY. CIT V. NEEL KANTH LAXMI PRASAD & LAXMI PRASAD S AHU 2 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT THE REVENUES GROUNDS RAISE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES. FOR EXAMPLE, GROU NDS 1 AND 2 ARE IN RESPECT OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963; IT HAVING FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISUSE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND, FURTHER, WITHO UT RECORDING ANY REASON FOR ADMITTING THE SAME, EVEN AS SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIE S HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE/S BY THE ASSESSING AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TOWARD THE SAME, BOTH IN THE ASSESSMENT AND THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. THE SAME, AS WOULD BE SELF-EVIDENT, SHALL REQUIRE EXAMINING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE; THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED IN FACT, BEFORE DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES, BESIDES THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH HAS IN ITS WISDOM CONSIDERED IT PRO PER TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/S. IN FACT, SHRI PUROHIT, THE LD. SENIOR C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WOULD CONTEST THE CHARGE OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE BY THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF, STATING THAT NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAD IN FACT BEEN ADMI TTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE SCOPE OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 254(2) IS LIMI TED TO AMENDING THE PARENT ORDER WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE, APPARE NT FROM RECORD, THEREIN, PRECLUDING DECIDING ANY DEBATABLE ISSUE. AS AFORESA ID, THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE REVENUES APPLICATIONS RAISE ISSUE/S REQUIRING REVI EW OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IMPERMISSIBLE U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE , HAVE NO HESITATION IN DECLINING THE INTERFERENCE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATIONS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 16, 2021 SD/- SD/- (N.R.S.GANESAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16/02/2021 // TRUE COPY //