GREAVES COTTON LTD, V. ITO WD 6(3)(2),

MA 655/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0622 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

MA NO. 655/MUM/2012 M/S GREVES COTTON LIMITED, MUMBAI.. PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'H' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE B.R. MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 655/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA 6830/MUM /2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 DATE OF HEARING: 5/7/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 5/7/2013 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH, AM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE REQUESTING FOR AMENDMENT OF THE ORDER DATED 28-7-20 12 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 6830/MUM/2005 ON THE GROUND OF SOME APPAREN T MISTAKE. 2. THE FACTS IN BREIF ARE THAT THE SAID APPEAL HAD EARLIER BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 24.9.2010. SUBSEQU ENTLY THE ASSESSEE FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON THE GROUND RELAT ING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A FOR RECALL OF THE GROUND AS THE S AID GROUND HAD BEEN DECIDED WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUND WAS RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATE D 20 TH JUNE 2012. IN THE FRESH ORDER DATED 20 TH JULY 2012, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL DID N OT PRESS THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL FOLLO WING THE ORDER DATED M/S GREVES COTTON LIMITED INDUSTRY MANOR, APPASAHEB MARATHE MARG, PRABHADEVI. MUMBAI-400 025. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(3), 5 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 522, AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI- 400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY. MS. NEERAJA PRADHAN ASSESSEE BY: MS. AARTI VISSANJI MA NO. 655/MUM/2012 M/S GREVES COTTON LIMITED, MUMBAI.. PAGE 2 OF 2 24.9.2010 RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER AFTER NECESSARY EXAMINATION AND AFTER ALLOWING OPPO RTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION HAS POINTED OUT THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRESSED THE GROU ND, THE ORDER OF CIT (A) WAS REQUIRED TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BE DISMISSED. THEREFORE, THERE IS AN AP PARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE O F AO. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECO RDS AND CONSIDERED THE MATTER CAREFULLY. WE AGREE THAT THER E IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN RESTORING THE I SSUE TO THE FILE OF AO WHICH HAD NOT BEEN PRESSED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE TRI BUNAL. WE, THEREFORE, AMEND THE ORDER DATED 20 TH JULY 2012 OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ABOVE ISSUE BY HOLDING THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES U/S 14A DISMISSED AS NOT P RESSED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E 5-7-20 13 SD/- SD/- (B.R.MITTAL ) (RAJENDRA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SK SR. P.S, MUMBAI DATED 5.7.2013 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI