Dr. Mrs. Kulvinder Kaur, Jalandhar V. The ACIT, Jalandhar

MA 60/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0424 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S S KALRA

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. 60(ASR)/2010 (IN I.T.A. NO. 507 (ASR)/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN: AHCPK4829L DR.(MRS.) KULVINDER KAUR, VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSI ONER JALANDHAR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. S.S. KALRA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 14.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:19.06.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELL ANEOUS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT) FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2010 PASSED BY THIS BENCH IN I.T.A. NO. 507 & 514(ASR)/2009. 2) LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THI S BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 09.02.2010 RESTORED BACK THE IMPUGNED O RDER TO THE FILE OF 2 LEARNED CIT(A) BY GIVING FINDINGS IN PARAS 4 AND 5 OF THE ORDER. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE CONTENTIONS OF PARAS 4 AN D 5 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS BENCH AND STATED THAT THIS BENCH HAS SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) SOLELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE HAD CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NON-SPEAKING ONE AND THE STAT EMENT UNDER 132(4) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY LEARNED CIT(A ) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THE APPEAL. HE FURTHER STAT ED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE BENCH ARE INCORRECT AND NOT BASED ON WHAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. NOWHERE, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) IS NON-SPEAKING NOR IT WAS CONTENDED BY THEM THAT THE STATEMENT REC ORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY LEARNE D CIT(A). WHILE THE FACT IS OTHERWISE THAT THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) IS A PART OF THE BODY OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND HE ALLOWED THE APPEAL ONLY AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH I NCLUDED REFERENCE TO STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS BENCH HAS WRONGLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF L EARNED CIT(A). THIS MISTAKE IS APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH NEEDS RECTIFI CATION UNDER SECTION 3 254(2) OF THE ACT AND HE REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER D ATED 09.02.2010 PASSED BY THIS BENCH MAY BE RECALLED. 3) LEARNED D.R. HAD CONTROVERTED THE ARGUMENT ADVAN CED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT IN VIEW OF PARAS 4 AND 5 OF THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2010 PASSED BY THIS BENCH IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 17.09.2009 WAS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER AND HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ST ATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 12.05.2005 RECORDED UNDER SECTION 13 2(4) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 09.02.2010, HAS RIGHTLY RESTORED THE FILE TO LEARNED CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION F OR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL, EVIDENCES AND ST ATEMENT AND TO PASS SPEAKING ORDER AFRESH. LEARNED D.R. FURTHER STATED THAT LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE AP PARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2010 PASSED BY THIS BENCH, AS SUCH THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MAY BE DISMISSED. 4) WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE O RDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY INCLUDING THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2010 PASSED BY THIS BENCH ALONG WITH THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER O F LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 17.09.2009, PASSED UNDER SECTION 2 50(6) OF THE ACT FOR 4 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS NON-SPEAKING ORDER W HICH WE HAVE ALREADY HELD IN THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2010 BECAUSE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE IN DI SPUTE ELABORATELY BY PASSING A DETAILED ORDER AS WELL AS HAS NOT PROPERL Y GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 15.05.2005 RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. THIS BENCH HAS SET ASIDE THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT MATERIAL, EVIDENCE AND STATEM ENT AND TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AFRESH AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE PARTIES. WE FIND THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RECALL THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2010 PASSED BY THIS BENCH. ACCORDINGLY, THE P RESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. 5) IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO . 60(ASR)/2010 FILED IN I.T.A. NO. 507(ASR)/2009 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH JUNE, 2013 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 TH JUNE, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 5 1. THE ASSESSEE: DR.(MRS.) KULVINDER KAUR, JALANDHAR 2. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.