ACIT, Bangalore V. Sri Sharath, Bangalore

MA 54/BANG/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application (MA) by the Revenue seeking to correct a mistake in the Tribunal's earlier order dated 21.09.2021 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. The mistake pertained to the restoration of the matter to the AO instead of the CIT(A), as was done for the previous assessment years. The Tribunal found that the MA was filed within the due date and accepted the Revenue's request to correct the order by restoring the matter to the CIT(A). The learned Advocate for the respondent did not object to this correction.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124550 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 2; 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.54/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.1149/Bang/2009) Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1(2), Bengaluru. Vs. Shri Sharath, L/R of Late Shri A. N. Rangaswamy, 64, Hospital Road, Belepet Road Cross, Bengaluru – 560 001. PAN : AHFPR 8059 L APPLICANTRESPONDENT Assessee by:Shri Ravi Shankar, Advocate Revenue by :Shri.Shankar GaneshK,Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing:09.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement:09.06.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Judicial Member: This Miscellaneous Application (MA) at the instance of the Revenue is seeking to correct certain mistakes which have crept in the Tribunal Order in ITA No.1149/Bang/2009, order dated 21.09.2021, for Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The learned AR had raised preliminary objection stating that the MA filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation. However, on perusal of the records, we find copy of the order of the ITAT was received by the concerned AO only on 29.08.2022 and this MA has been filed well within the due date prescribed under MA No.54/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.1149/Bang/2009) Page 2 of 3 section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, this preliminary contention raised by the assessee is rejected. 2. As regards the issue on merits, the learned DR submitted that the Tribunal, in the impugned order for the Assessment Year 2005-06, had restored the matter to the AO by following its earlier order for Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2004-05. It was submitted by the learned DR that for the earlier year, the Tribunal for the Assessment Years 1999-2000 to 2004-05, had restored the matter not to the AO but to the CIT(A). Therefore, it was submitted that in this case the error in restoring the matter to the AO by the Tribunal vide its order dated 21.09.2021 need to be corrected and the matter may be sent back / restored to the files of the CIT(A). 3. The learned AR did not have a serious objection for restoring the matter to the CIT(A) instead of the AO. After hearing the rival submissions, we restore the issues that are raised in this appeal to the files of the CIT(A) instead of AO as it was mentioned in the Tribunal Order dated 21.09.2021. No other contentions were raised either by the learned DR or by the learned AR. 4. In the result, the MA filed by the Revenue is partly allowed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (CHANDRA POOJARI)(GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant MemberJudicial Member Bangalore. Dated: 09.06.2023. /NS/* MA No.54/Bang/2023 (in ITA No.1149/Bang/2009) Page 3 of 3 Copy to: 1.Appellants2.Respondent 3.CIT4.CIT(A) 5.DR, ITAT, Bangalore.6.Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore.