The Asstt.Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar V. M/s. ATM Forigings, Jalandhar

MA 6/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9238 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 25-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R L CHHANALIA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVISH SOOD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.06(ASR)/2011 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.524(ASR)/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 PAN :AADFA8276F DY.. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX VS. M/S. ATM FORGINGS, RANGE-II, JALANDHAR. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. R.L. CHHANALIA, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. RAVISH SOOD, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING:05/10/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:05/10/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 08.02.2010 PASSED I N ITA NO.524(ASR)/2009 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) O F THE ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THERE IS NO MI STAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THEREFORE, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N MAY BE DISMISSED. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH US. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. DR HAS NOT POINTED OUT A SINGLE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2010. IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE DCIT, RANGE-II, JALA NDHAR HAS ONLY NARRATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS SEEKING LEGAL ADVISE F ROM THIS BENCH, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW BECAUSE THIS BENCH HA S CLEARLY ISSUED DIRECTIONS TO THE AO, WHICH HE HAS TO COMPLY WITH. IT IS NOT A CASE OF ANY APPARENT MISTAKE FROM RECORD, WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGH T TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THEREFORE, TH E PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A.NO.06(ASR)/2011 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5TH OCTOBER, 2012. (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5TH OCTOBER, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. ATM FORGINGS, JALANDHAR. 2. THE DCIT R-II, JLR. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER