Bajrang Lal Jindal, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

MA 67/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2519 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.67/LKW/2014 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.789LKW/2013] ASSESSMENT YEARS:2004-05 SHRI. BAJRANG LAL JINDAL 140, ANANDPURI KANPUR V. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE III KANPUR PAN:AANP5660J (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 19 09 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 10 2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.3.2014 IN I.T.A NO.789/LKW/2013, WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE WITHOUT LOOKING TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, A MISTAKE IS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.3.2014 AND THE SAME MAY BE RECALLED. 2. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERIT HAVING EXAMINED BOTH THE ISSUES, THEREFORE, RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. :- 2 -: 3. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD VIS--VIS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERIT HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ON THE DATE OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND ON RECORD AND ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SOME ARGUMENTS AS RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN WHICH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE FIND NO ERROR APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE SUBMISSIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE NO ERROR IS APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.3.2014, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:21 ST OCTOBER, 2014 JJ:3009 :- 3 -: COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR