ITO, Ward - 38(4), Kolkata, V. Shri Sanjiv Prahladka, Kolkata

MA 57/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7552 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K ROY LD
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBASH AGARWAL LD
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALC BENCH: KOLK ATA , C, [ , . . !., '# ] [BEFORE SHRI N.VIJAYKUMARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] ' $ / M.A. NO. 57/KOL/2011 [ IN I.T.A. NO. 1510/KOL/2008 ] %& '( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 INCOME-TAX OFFICER VS. SRI SANJIV PRAHLADKA WARD 38(4), KOLKATA . PAN: AENPP9160R [ ' /APPLICANT ] [+,-./ RESPONDENT ] ' /APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.K. ROY, LD.DR +,-. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, LD.AR 0 1 !# /DATE OF HEARING : 20-01-2012 2' 1 !# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20-01-2012 '3 /ORDER , SHRI N.VIJAYKUMARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BY THE DEPARTMENT IS TH AT THE ITAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12-06-2009 WRONGLY TAKEN THE QUANTUM OF THE A PPEAL AS TAX EFFECT BELOW RS. 2 LAKH. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, TAX EFFECT STANDS AT RS.2,39,208/-. HENCE, OLD CIRCULAR OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.5/2008 DATED 15-05-2008 CLEARLY PERM ITS THE DEPARTMENT TO PREFER APPEAL, WHEN THE APPEAL EFFECT IS MORE THAN RS. 2 LAKH. THIS IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD.DR. IN REPLY, THE LD. COUNSEL SU BMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF RECENT CIRCULAR THIS WILL NOT IN ANY WAY THE DEPARTMENT TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR APPEAL(S). HENCE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT PLEASE BE DISMISSED. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE OL D CIRCULAR OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.5/2008 DATED 15/05/2008 CLEARLY LAID DOWN THE MO NETARY LIMIT AS ABOUT RS. 2 LAKHS (TAX EFFECT). IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED TH AT THE TAX EFFECT STANDS AT RS.2,39,208/-. HENCE, THIS MISTAKE HAS TO BE RECTIFIED. HENCE, WE RECALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 12-06- 2009 UNDER THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL FOR THE RELEV ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. [M.A. NO. 57/KOL/2011-C-NVK 2 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED. '3 #' 4 5 67 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20-01-20 12 SD/- SD/- [ . !., '# ] [ , [ C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] [ N.VIJAYKUMARAN, J UDICIAL MEMBER] !# / DATED : 20-01-2012 '3 1 +%% 8''/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT- ITO, WARD 38(4), KOLKATA 2 +,-. / RESPONDENT : SHRI SANJIV PRAHLADKA PROP: M/S. SAN JIV INTERNATIONAL & M/S. HILLMAN & CO. 26/1 G, P.K. TAGORE ST., KOL-6. 3. %3/ CIT, 4. %3 ()/ CIT(A), 5. @%5 +%/ DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA [, +%/ TRUE COPY] '3/ BY ORDER, 6 /ASSTT REGISTRAR. *PP AB %C %D /SR.PS]