ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Sehgal Investment (P) Ltd, New Delhi

MA 58/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6590 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAKSHI GUPTA
• Section: 260A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH FRIDAY NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 58/DEL/2011 IN I.T.A. NO.1351 /DEL/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 DCIT, SEHGAL INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., CIRCLE8 (1), A-20, MANASTHALI APARTMENTS, NEW DELHI. V. VASUNDHARA ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. ANUSHA KHURANA, DR. RESPONDENT BY : MS. SHAKSHI GUPTA. ORDER PER A.K. GARODIA, AM: IN THIS MISC. APPLICATION, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE RE VENUE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL O RDER. THIS FACT IS WORTH NOTING THAT THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEA L BEFORE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AGAINST THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 23.11.2009 AND THE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI COURT DATED 19.7.2010 IN I.T.A. NO.925/2010 HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE ALONG WITH THIS MISC. APPLICATION. AS PER THIS JUDGM ENT, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN LIMINE AND IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE WHOLE CASE HINGE S ON FACT AS THE PAGE 2 OF 4 MA NO58../DEL/11 TRIBUNAL HAD CATEGORICALLY RECORDED A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF DISPATCH/SERVICE OF NOTICE WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH TO THE LD DR OF THE REVENUE THAT WHEN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HON'BL E DELHI HIGH COURT, THE TRIBUNAL ORDER STANDS MERGED WITH THE JUDG MENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND FOR THIS REASON, THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. IN REPLY, LD DR OF THE REVENUE HAD NOTHING MUCH TO SAY AND SHE MERELY SUBMITTED THAT IT I S THE REQUEST OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD DR OF T HE REVENUE AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD AND THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. WE FIND THAT AGAI NST THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IN WHICH THE REVENUE IS CLAIMING THAT THERE AR E CERTAIN MISTAKES, APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE U/S 260A BEFORE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND AS PER THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.7.2010 I N I.T.A. NO.925/2010, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED TH E APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN LIMINE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WHEN A N APPEAL U/S 260A IS FILED AND ADMITTED AGAINST ANY TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT ENTERTAIN ANY MISC. APPLICATION THEREAFTER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE POSITION IS THIS THAT HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS REJE CTED AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE TRIBUNA L ORDER DATED 23.11.2009 AND HENCE THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 23.11.2009 IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE REVENU E IS DISMISSED. PAGE 3 OF 4 MA NO58../DEL/11 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE O F HEARING I.E. 3 RD JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV ) (A.K. GAR ODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 03.6.2011. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING DATE OF DICTATION DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY THE HON'BLE MEMBER. DATE OF ORDER SENT TO THE CONCERNED BENCH PAGE 4 OF 4 MA NO58../DEL/11