- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM M A NO. 56 /P U N/201 8 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 160 /PN/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 6 - 0 7 MOHINIDEVI BHOJRAJ MANCHANDA PLOT NO.20/21, OPP. HARIVIHAR SOCIETY, SAUBHAGYA NAGAR, NASHIK ROAD, NASHIK 422101 . APPLICANT PAN: ABFPM2470A VS. THE ASST. COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK . RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE RESPONDENT BY : MS. SHABANA PARVEEN / DATE OF HEARING : 0 8 . 0 3 .201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12 . 0 3 .201 9 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM : THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPLICANT AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 0 5 . 0 8 .201 6 . 2. THE APPLICANT IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AND HAS POINTED OUT THE FOLLOWING: - HON'BLE BENCH HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF APPELLANT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE WHEREBY MATTER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRE CTION TO PASS SPEAKING ORDER AGAINST THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HON'BLE BENCH HAS REFERRED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF V.M. SALGAO NCAR SALES INTERNATIONAL VS. ACIT (2015) 59 TAXMANN.COM 291 (BOM) AND BY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION CONTENDED THEREIN HONBLE BENCH HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER. 2 M A NO. 56 /P U N/201 8 HOWEVER, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE HAS RELIED UPON SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE PVT. LTD. 382 ITR 333 (BOM) / 66 TAXMANN.COM 335 WHEREIN HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS QUASHED THE PROCEEDING OF RE - ASSESSMENT FOR THE REASON THAT NO SPEAKING ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS REGARD IT IS MOST HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS JUDGMENT THOUGH REFERRED DURING COURSE OF HEARING, HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN FINAL ORDER AND THEREFORE THE ABOVE REFERRED ORDER SUFFERS FROM AN APPARENT ERROR. IT IS THEREFORE MOST HUMBLY PRAYED BEFORE HONBLE BENCH THAT THE ABOVE REFERRED ORDER MAY KINDLY BE RECALLED AND OBLIGE. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPLICANT POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BAYER MATERIAL SCIENCE PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 382 ITR 333 (BOM) , WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD QUASHED THE PROCEEDINGS AND RE - ASSESSMENT. 4. IT WAS PUT TO THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A PPLICANT THAT WHETHER THE SAID DECISION WAS REFERRED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. HE FAIRLY POINTED OUT THAT NO SUCH REFERENCE WAS MADE IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS. WHERE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE APPLICANT AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ANY CASE, IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY OF HEARING TO THE APPLICANT. 5 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF APPLICANT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 12 TH DAY OF MARCH , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 12 TH MARCH , 201 9 . GCVSR 3 M A NO. 56 /P U N/201 8 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APP LICANT ; 2. / THE RESPOND ENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - I, NASHIK ; 4. / THE CIT - 1, NASHIK ; 5. 6. , , , - / DR SMC , ITAT, PUNE; / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE C OPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE