G Balaraj, Mangalore V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Mangalore

MA 67/BANG/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3143 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUN IL KUMAR AGARWALJ
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMASUBRAMANIAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P.BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC.PETN.NO.67/BANG/2015 (IN ITA NO. 121 / BANG/20 1 3 ) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 5 - 06 ) SHRI G.BALARAJ, PWD C ONTRACTOR, 6 - 112 - 81, NETRAVATHI NAGAR LAYOUT, NAGORI, KANKANADY, MANGALORE. PETITIONER PAN:ABZPB 5464 B VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RESPONDENT MANGALORE. PETITIONER BY: SHRI S.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, CA. RESPO NDENT BY: SHRI SUNILKUMAR AGARWAL, JCIT(DR). DATE OF HEARING : 2 4 /0 7 /2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 / 0 7 / 2015 . O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM : THIS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT ] SEE KING RECTIFICATION OF THE ALLEGED MISTAKE APPEARING IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30/01/2015 IN ITA NO .121 & C.O.NO.93/BANG/2013. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF DIFFERENCE IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE AND AS PER MP N O. 67 /BANG/201 5 SHRI G.BALARAJ PAGE 2 OF 3 PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AT PARA 8 OF ITS ORDER THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN RECEIPTS CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 BUT HOWEVER IN THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE SA ID PARA, IT IS STATED THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.4 & 5 ARE REJECTED. SIMILARLY, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE FINAL RESULT IN PARA 9 IS ALSO ERRONEOUSLY MENTIONED AS ALLOWED THOUGH IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED AS DISMISSED . 3. UPON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS IN PARA.8 OF OUR ORDER DATED 30/01/2015 , WE ARE IN AGREE MENT WITH ASSESSEE S CONTENTIONS THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER . T HEREFORE IT IS ORDERED AS UNDER: (I) THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARA 8 SHALL READ AS UNDER: THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.4 & 5 ARE REJECTED (II) PARA.9 SHALL BE READ AS UNDER: 9. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. PETITION IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JULY, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (JASON P BOAZ) (SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER E KSRINIVASULU MP N O. 67 /BANG/201 5 SHRI G.BALARAJ PAGE 3 OF 3 COP Y TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL BANGALORE