DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Jabalpur V. SHRI LAXMI PRASD SAHU,

MA 6/JAB/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0613 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEERJA PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G N PUROHIT
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI NRS GANESAN, J UDICIAL M EMBER & SHRI SANJAY ARORA, A CCOUNTANT M EMBER M A NO. 05 /JAB/20 15 (IN ITA NO.44/JAB/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995 - 96 D Y. CIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), JABALPUR V S. NEEL KANTHLAXMI PRASAD MAJHOLI, TEHSIL SIHORA, DISTT. JABALPUR. [ PAN : ALKPS9505K ] (APPL IC ANT) ( RESPONDENT ) M A NO. 06 /JAB/20 15 (IN ITA NO.102/JAB/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995 - 96 D Y. CIT, CIRCLE - 1(1), JABALPUR V S. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, MAJHOLI, TEHSIL SIHORA, DISTT. JABALPUR. [PAN: N OT A VAILABLE ] (APPL IC ANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT. NEERJA PRADHAN, CIT - DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI G. N. PUROHIT , SR. ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 1 6 /02/2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16 /02/2021 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA , AM : THIS IS A SET OF TWO M ISCELLANEOUS P ETITION S BY THE REVENUE , DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER U NDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTER) DATED 19.02.2015 BY THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT TO THE CAPTIONED APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 1995 - 96 . 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT THE REVENUES G ROUNDS RAISE CONTENTIOUS ISSUES. FOR EXAMPLE, GROUNDS 1 AND 2 ARE IN RESPECT MA NOS. 05 & 06/JAB/2015 (AY 1995 - 96) DY. CIT V. NEEL KANTHLAXMI PRASAD &LAXMI PRASAD SAHU 2 OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CONTRAVENTION OF R ULE 2 9 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963; IT HAVING FAILED TO EXAMINE THE ISUSE IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND, FURTHER , WITHOUT RECORDING ANY REASON FOR ADMITTING THE SAM E , EVEN AS SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO TH E ASSESSEE /S BY THE ASSESSING AND THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TOWARD THE SAME, B OTH IN THE ASSESSMENT AND THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SAME, AS WOULD BE SELF - EVIDENT , SHALL REQUIRE EXAMINING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ; THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED IN FACT, BEFORE DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES, BESIDES THE TRIBUNAL , WHICH HAS IN ITS WISDOM CONSIDERED IT PROPER TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE /S . IN FACT, SHRIPUROHIT, THE LD. S ENIOR COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE, W OULD C ONTEST THE CHARGE OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF ,STATING THAT NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAD IN FACT BEEN ADMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE SCOPE OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S . 254(2) IS LIMITED TO AMENDING THE PARENT ORDER WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ING ANY MISTAKE , APPARENT FROM RECORD , THEREIN, PRECLUDING DECIDING ANY DEBATABLE ISSUE. AS AFORESAID, THE SUBJECT - MATTER OF THE R EVENUES APPLICATIONS RAISE ISSUE / S REQUIRING REVIEW OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER , IMPERMISSIBLE U/S . 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, HAVE NO HESITATION IN DECLINING THE INTERFERENCE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S ARE DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FEBRUARY 16 , 202 1 SD/ - SD/ - (N.R.S.GANESAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16 /02/2021 //TRUE COPY//