ACIT, Palakkad V. Sri. P.Mohammed Sheriff, Palakkad

MA 59/COCH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0811 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA

Judgement Text

MA 59/ COCH/ 2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APELALTER TIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH , COCHIN BEFORE S/SH RI N.R.S. GANESAN, JM & B. R. BASKARAN, AM MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 59/COCH/2013 ARISING OUT OF IT (SS) A NO. 139/ COCH/ 2005 ( B P 1.4.1996 TO 28.8.2002 ) THE ASST COMMR OF INCOME TACX CIRCLE 1, PALAKKAD VS SH P MOHAMMED SHERIEF PAZHERI HOUSE THENKARA MANNARKKAD PALAKKAD ( APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AJFPS 6305L ASSESSEE BY WRITTEN SUBMISSION REVENUE BY SMT S VIJAYAPRABHA, JR DR DATE OF HEARING 2 ND AUG 2013 DATE OF PRONOUN CEMENT 8 TH , AUG 2013 OREER PER N.R.S G A N ESAN,JM : REVENUE HAS FILED THIS PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 2 SMT S VIJAYAPRABHA, LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 14 AT PAGE 9 OF THIS TRIBUNALS ORDER AT 6 TH LINE FROM TOP, THIS TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). HOWEVER, IN THE OPERATING PORTION OF THE VERY SAME PARA, THE MAT T ER WAS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD DR , THERE WAS A CONFUSION WHETHER THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE LD CIT(A) OR BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO THE LD DR, THE TRIBUNAL MAY CLARIFY THE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY, WHO NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED THE MATTER. MA 59/ COCH/ 2013 2 3 NO NE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION SAYING THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION MAY BE CONSIDERED ON MERIT. 4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD DR AN D PERUSED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD DR, AT PAGE 9 , PARA 14 6 TH LINE FROM THE BOTTOM , THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE LD CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE MATTER WAS FINALLY REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE INTENTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION; THEREFORE , THE OBSERVATIO NS MADE BY IT AT 6 TH LINE FROM TOP AT PAGE 9 IS AN ERROR, WHICH IS APPARENT ON RECORD, WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.6.2012 IS RECTIFIED AS UNDER: PARA 14, PAGE 9, 6 TH LINE FROM TOP THE FOLLOWING IS DEL ETED: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) INSTEAD THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INSERTED: ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW, AFTER RECTIFICATION, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL SHALL BE READ AS UNDER: WE FIND THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND THE INFORMATION COLLECTED BY THE AO WHICH IS RELATABLE TO THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. MA 59/ COCH/ 2013 3 5 IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH , DAY OF AUG 2013. SD/ SD/ - ( B.R. BASKARAN) ( N .R.S GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 8 TH , AUG 2013 RAJ* C OPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN