M/s Laxmi Automobiles Agencies, Kanpur V. Inocme Tax Officer-1(2), Kanpur

MA 67/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3496 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI VERMA SINGH

Judgement Text

1 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/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 819 /LKW/201 4 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 11 M/S LAXMI AUTOMOBILES AGENCIES, 16/103, THE MALL, KANPUR. PAN:AABFL6839P VS. ITO - 1 (2), KANPUR. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY S MT. NIDHI VERMA SINGH, SR. DR. DATE OF HEARING 04 /0 9 /2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 1 /0 9 /2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUESTING FOR RECALL OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 23.03.2015. IT IS SUBMITTED IN THE M. A. THAT THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED AR IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL HAVE ESCAPED ATTENTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE AND IT SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. 2. IN COURSE OF HEARING, SAME CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND WE FIND THAT A PAPER BOOK OF 171 PAGES IS AVAILABLE IN THE APPEAL FOLDER BUT IN THE IMPUGNED [ 2 ] TRIBUNAL ORDER, THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO ANY OF THE PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE M.A. THAT THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRED TO BY THE LEARNED AR IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL HAVE ESCAPED ATTENTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NON CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE. THIS VIEW OF US IS FORTIFIED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE M. P. HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MITHALAL ASHOK KUMAR, 158 ITR 755 (M.P.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN THE M.A. IS JUSTIFIED IF IN THE ORIGINAL TRIBUNAL ORDER, THERE WAS NON CON SIDERATION OF SOME MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, WE RECALL THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THIS APPEAL FOR HEARING IN REGULAR COURSE BECAUSE THE APPEAL HAS TO BE DECIDED AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD IN THE FORM OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 1 /0 9 /2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR