Basisth Kuamr Jaiswal & Others, Kanpur V. ACIT, Faizabad

MA 64/LKW/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8837 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V V SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. R. JAIN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M. A NO. 64/LKW/2009 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 48/LUC/2005] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1994 - 95 BASISTH KUMAR JAISWA L & OTHERS FAIZABAD V. ACIT FAIZABAD PAN: AFWPJ8184R (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) M. A NO. 65/LKW/2009 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 49/LUC/2005] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1994 - 95 RAM DHANI JAISWAL & OTHERS FAIZABAD V. ACIT FAIZABAD PAN: AFWPJ6199L (APP LIC ANT) ( RESPONDENT) M. A NO. 66/LKW/2009 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 50/LUC/2005] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1994 - 95 RAM PALTAN JAISWAL & OTHERS FAIZABAD V. ACIT FAIZABAD PAN: ADLPA0225F (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) M. A NO. 67/LKW/2009 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 51/LUC/2005] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1994 - 95 SATISH CHANDRA PANDE Y & OTHERS FAIZABAD V. ACIT FAIZABAD PAN: AFWPJ6198M (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) : - 2 - : APP LIC ANT BY: SHRI. ABHINAV MEHROTRA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. V. V. SINGH, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 06.07.2012 DATE O F PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.07.2012 O R D E R PER S UNIL KUMAR YADAV : THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE PREFERRED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.10.2008 WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GOVIND PRASAD KRISHNA KUMAR V. JCIT (SPECIAL), AGRA IN ITA NO. 236/AGR/2006, WHEREAS THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE QUITE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE S OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEES . THEREFORE, A MISTAKE IS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CALLS FOR RECTIFICATION. 2 . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BL E MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AWADHESH PRATAP SINGH ABDUL REHMAN & BROS. V. CIT [1994], 210 ITR 406 WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE WHEREAS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEES CASE S ARE NOT ANALOGOUS TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE DISPOSED OF BY THE AG RA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED AND A FRESH HEARING BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE S IN ORDER TO BRING THE CORRECT FACTS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3 . THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE AGRA BENCH OF THE : - 3 - : TRIBUNAL AND THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS FO LLOWED THE ORDER OF THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEALS AND NOW THE ASSESSEE S ARE TAKING ALTOGETHER A CONTRARY STAND THAT THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE DIFFERENT. 4 . HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE S FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ON WHICH RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, NOTHING WAS STATED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S WITH REGARD TO THE FACTUAL DIFFERENCE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE S WITH THE ORDER OF THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. T HE LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH. T HEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. MOREOVER, THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) IS VERY LIMITED UNDER WHICH ANY MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CAN BE RE CTIFIED . UNDER THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION , REVIEW OF THE ORDER IS NOT POSSIBLE. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS PREFERRED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES AND DISMISS THE SAME. 5 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.7.2012. S D/ - S D/ - [B. R. JAIN ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 10.7.2012 JJ: 0607 : - 4 - : COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APP LIC ANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR