Sahara India Financial Corp. Ltd, V. ACIT, New Delhi

MA 51/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5880 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS BANITA DEVI
• Assessee Lawyers: J J MEHROTRACA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : FRIDAY NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT A ND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 51/DEL/2010 (IN ITA NOS. 1696 & 1649/D/08) ASSTT. YEAR 1994-95 SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD., 1, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW. VS. ACIT CC-6, NEW DELHI. APPELLANT BY: SHRI J.J. MEHROTRA,CA RESPONDENT BY: MRS. BANITA DEVI, DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM : THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE POINTING OUT CERTAIN APPARENT ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2009 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1696/D/08 AND 1649/D/08. MA NO. 51/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 1994- 95 2 2. IT IS PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT ASSESSEE H AS SHOWN COST OF PLANT AND MACHINERY, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENTS, AC PLA NT, COMMUNICATION SYSTEM, OFFICE EQUIPMENT ETC. AT NOIDA, SAHARA TOW ER AT RS. 3,49,18,123/-. LD. AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR WORKING OUT THE TRUE VALUE OF THESE ITEMS. THE DVO IN ITS REPORT HA S DETERMINED THE VALUE OF PLANT AND MACHINERY AT RS. 3,76,87,180/-. THE AO ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 27,69,057/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND RAI SED A SPECIFIC GROUND OF APPEAL BEARING GROUND NO. 4 & 5. LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THIS GROUND. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE FIN DING OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, CHALLENGE IT IN GROUND NO. 6 AND PAR TLY IN GROUND 7. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING ITS APPEAL DID NOT DECI DE THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS WAY SU BMITTED THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS SUFFERING FROM AN APPARENT ERROR OF NON ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE. 3. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES WE FIND THAT GROUND NO. 6 AND PARTLY GROUND NO. 7 TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE REMAINED UNADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING OF TH E APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. TO OUR MIND IT IS AN APPARENT ERROR, WHICH REQUIRED RECTIFICATION. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AND RESTORE THE MA NO. 51/DEL/2010 ASSTT. YEAR 1994- 95 3 APPEAL OF ASSESSEE TO ITS ORIGINAL NUMBER FOR A LIM ITED PURPOSE I.E FOR ADJUDICATING GROUND NO,. 6 AND 7. THE APPLICATION O F THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3.12.2010. SD/- [G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA] [RAJPAL YADAV] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT