CHANDRAKANT PANDURANG CHAPHEKAR, V. ITO WD, PALGHAR

MA 588/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6046 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A O NAYAK
• Assessee Lawyers: D H SAVE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI SMC BENCH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI R.S.PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO.588/MUM/2010 A.Y 2005-06 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.4943/M/2009) CHANDRAKANT PANDURANG CHAPHEKAR, C/O. D.H.SAVE & ASSOCIATES, 307, CHURCHGATE CHAMBERS, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 400 020. PAN: ACGPC 8856 N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, PALGHAR, THANE. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI D.H.SAVE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.O.NAYAK. O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, AM: THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, ASSESSEE H AS SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A .NO.4943/MUM/2009. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL MAINLY ON THE BASIS THAT ADDITION OF ` `` ` .43,700/- WAS MADE ON AN AGREED BASIS BY THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AO IN RESPONSE TO VARIOUS QUERIES, A COP Y OF THE LETTER WAS FILED EXPLAINING THE QUERIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE COUNSEL APPEARING BEFORE THE AO HAD MERELY SIGNED IN THE NO TING SHEET AS MARK OF ATTENDANCE AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAI D THAT HE HAD AGREED FOR THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, AN ERROR HAS CR EPT INTO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME REQUIRES RECTIFICATION. 2 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AG REED FOR THE ADDITION AND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON THIS BASIS AND, ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO ERROR APPARENT FROM THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY AND ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COU NSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO GROUND WAS TA KEN THAT FINDING OF THE AO WAS WRONG. MOREOVER, NO AFFIDAVIT OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, WHIC H COULD PROVE THAT THE ADDITION WAS NEVER AGREED BEFORE THE AO. MERE F ILING OF A COPY OF LETTER AT THE STAGE OF HEARING ON MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION, CANNOT LEAD TO ANY OTHER CONCLUSION. IN ANY CASE, PERUSAL OF LE TTER DATED 13-07- 2007 DOES NOT THROW ANY LIGHT WHETHER ADDITION WAS AGREED TO OR NOT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO ERROR IS APPA RENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND, ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS REJE CTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.S.PADVEKAR) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 21 ST JANUARY, 2011. P/-*