DCIT RG 3(2), V. LAKHINA INTERNTIAONAL P. LTD,

MA 556/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7403 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P C MOURYA
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN(J.M) & SHRI T.R.SOO D (A.M) MA NO.556/MUM/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5087/MUM/2004) A.Y. 2001-02 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 3(2), MUMBAI. (APPLICANT) VS M/S. LAKHINA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD., 2, SURUCHI, J. BHOSLE MARG, MUMBAI 400 021. PAN:AAACL 7071M (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI P.C. MOURYA RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 30/12/20 11 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/12/2011 ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M, THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE PRAYING THAT THE ORDER DATED 19/6/2007 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS. 2.00 LACS IS ERRONEOUS AND HAS TO BE RECALLED. 2. THE NOTICE OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AT THE LAST KNOWN RESIDENCE. A COPY OF THE ACKNOW LEDGEMENT TOGETHER WITH THE LETTER OF THE AO HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US. NON E APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. MA 556/M/2010 2 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT THE TA X EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS RS. 2,14,688/-, WHICH IN EXCESS OF THE LIMI T PRESCRIBED IN THE BOARDS INSTRUCTION NO.2 OF 2005 DATED 24/10/2005. THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, SUFFERS FROM A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE F ACE OF THE RECORD IN AS MUCH AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTIO N THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL WAS LESS THAN RS. 2.00 LACS. THE ORDER DATED 19/6/2007 IS, THEREFORE, RECALLED AND THE APP EAL IS DIRECTED TO BE FIXED AFRESH FOR HEARING BY THE REGISTRY IN DUE COURSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DEC.2011 SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED. 30 TH DEC.2011 COPY TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CITY CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 5. THE D.RA BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI. VM. MA 556/M/2010 3 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 30/12/2011 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 30/12/2011 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER