Smt. Ritu Gyanchandani, Bhopal V. The DCIT, 3(1), Bhopal

MA 64/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8080 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: R N GUPTA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA , AM M.A. NO. 64/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS) A NO. 101/IND/2006 RITU GYANCHANDANI BHOPAL PAN AHFPG-0480L :: APPLICANT VS DY.CIT 3(1) BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT APP L ICANT BY SHRI R.N. GUPTA RESPONDENT BY SHRI ARUN DEWAN DATE OF HEARING 11 .05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 .05.2012 O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, AM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 9.1.2012. THROUGH THIS PETITION, THE LD.COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 2 OF THE O RDER 2 OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN LEGAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THIS GROU ND WAS NOT ARGUED NOR PRESSED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE LEGAL GROUND WAS FULLY ARGUED AND IN THE COURSE OF HEARIN G, HE SUBMITTED JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ALONG WITH THEIR PHOTOCOPIES. AS PER THE AFFIDAVIT, THE LEARNED DR HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF LETTER DATED 19.4.2010 OF AC IT 3(1), BHOPAL ALONG WITH ANNEXURE. 2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE CONTENDED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN PARA 2 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR ARGUED THAT TH ERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SO AS TO RECTIFY THE SAME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 54(2) OF THE ACT. 3 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 9.1.2012. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORTED HIS CONTENTION THAT LEGAL GROUND WAS ALSO ARGUED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE FIND TH AT THIS LEGAL GROUND WAS FIRST TIME RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL, THERE WAS DELAY OF ONE YEAR AND 10 MONTHS, THE EARL IER BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE DELAY AND VIDE ORDER IN NOTE SHEET DATED 11.1.2010 CONDONED THE DE LAY BY OBSERVING THAT THE LEGAL GROUND WAS INVOLVED. I T APPEARS THAT INADVERTENTLY THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED D URING THE COURSE OF HEARING WAS NOT CONSIDERED WHEREAS I N TERMS OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WAS DULY PRESSED DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING. WE FIND THAT EVEN THE DEPARTMENT WAS AL SO DIRECTED BY THE BENCH TO FILE AUTHORIZATION LETTER TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT SEARCH WAS INITIATED AT THE ASSES SEES PREMISES. THE DEPARTMENT VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 19.4 .2010 4 HAD ALSO FILED THE REPLY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDE RED AND THE SAME AMOUNTS TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE RECTIFY THE SAME AND THE REGISTRY I S DIRECTED TO FIX THE CASE FOR HEARING THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 5 TH JUNE, 2012. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION O F THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 ST MAY, 2012 SD SD (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 21 ST MAY, 2012 DN/-