GEETA ABHIJIT BHOIR, MUMBAI V. ITO 20 (1) (2), MUMBAI

MA 674/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3538 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 54EC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MA No. 674/MUM/2018 (ITA No. 06/MUM/2016) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Geeta Abhijit Bhoir, 85, Indira Villa, L.N. Rd., 3 rd Lane, Hindu Colony, Dadar, Mumbai-400014. Vs. ITO-20(1)(2), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai. PAN No. AMOPB 4669 G Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. M. Subramanian, AR Revenue by : Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR Date of Hearing : 15/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 15/07/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is seeking rectification in the order of the Tribunal dated 07.08.2018 passed in ITA No. 06/Mum/2016 for assessment year 2009-10. 2. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in para 5, the Tribunal has restored the matter to following the decision of the Co 5344/Mum/2012, however, buyer of the property has not been recorded by the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee is one of the co sold and in case of another co filed in ITA No. 5344/M/2012 (sup No. 265/M/2018 has and therefore, he submitted that order under reference be rectified to that extent. 3. Whereas, the Ld. DR submitted that there is nothing on rec to show that affidavit of the buyer to the file of the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal. The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in para 5, the Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. owever, reference of certain affidavit by the buyer of the property has not been recorded by the Tribunal. He submitted that the assessee is one of the co-owner of the property sold and in case of another co-owner Miscellaneous Application was filed in ITA No. 5344/M/2012 (supra) wherein the Tribunal in MA No. 265/M/2018 has made reference of affidavit filed by the buyer and therefore, he submitted that order under reference be rectified to that extent. Whereas, the Ld. DR submitted that there is nothing on rec affidavit of the buyer was filed for restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal. Geeta A. Bhoir MA No. 674/M/2018 2 The Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that in para 5, the the file of the Assessing Officer ordinate Bench in ITA No. certain affidavit by the buyer of the property has not been recorded by the Tribunal. He owner of the property owner Miscellaneous Application was ra) wherein the Tribunal in MA affidavit filed by the buyer and therefore, he submitted that order under reference also need to Whereas, the Ld. DR submitted that there is nothing on record was filed for restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and therefore, there is no mistake 4. We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue dispute and relevant material on record. We find that the assessee has sold one of the propert claim of deduction u/s 54EC of the Act case of the assessee. Following the finding in the case of the owner in ITA No. 5344/M/2012 (supra) issue to the file of the Assessing Officer on the ground that 28% of the land has been handed over to the original buyer under Court order, which was not considered by the DVO. In ITA 5344/ the respective assessee preferred which has been rejected by the Tribunal observing as under: “4. We have heard the counsels for both the parties and after perusing the material placed on record as well as order passed Hon'ble Tribunal dated 04.09.17, we notice that the bench while disposing the respective appeals, had order. Tribunal in sub the A to verify the documents including the court assessee, which suppose itself they will not as a prudent person is required to verify all the documents placed before him which We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue relevant material on record. We find that the assessee has sold one of the property along with other co-owners and after deduction u/s 54EC of the Act, addition was made case of the assessee. Following the finding in the case of the owner in ITA No. 5344/M/2012 (supra), the Tribunal issue to the file of the Assessing Officer on the ground that 28% of the land has been handed over to the original buyer under Court not considered by the DVO. In ITA 5344/ respective assessee preferred a Miscellaneous Application, which has been rejected by the Tribunal observing as under: We have heard the counsels for both the parties and after perusing the material placed on record as well as order passed Hon'ble Tribunal dated 04.09.17, we notice that the bench while disposing the respective appeals, had passed a well-reasoned detailed order. Tribunal in sub-para no. 5 of its order has given direction to the A to verify the documents including the court orders filed assessee, which suppose itself they will not as a prudent person is to verify all the documents placed before him which Geeta A. Bhoir MA No. 674/M/2018 3 We have heard rival submissions of the parties on the issue-in- relevant material on record. We find that the assessee owners and after addition was made in the case of the assessee. Following the finding in the case of the co- , the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer on the ground that 28% of the land has been handed over to the original buyer under Court not considered by the DVO. In ITA 5344/M/2012, a Miscellaneous Application, which has been rejected by the Tribunal observing as under: We have heard the counsels for both the parties and after perusing the material placed on record as well as order passed by Hon'ble Tribunal dated 04.09.17, we notice that the bench while reasoned detailed given direction to orders filed by the assessee, which suppose itself they will not as a prudent person is to verify all the documents placed before him which obviously included the Mr. Hazare and placed on record by 5. Keeping in view our above observation, we find that no glaring, obvious or assessee which is apparent from the record and the same are misconceived. Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss this ground raised by the assessee in both the misc. application.” 4.1 It is evident that Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee in ITA No. 5344/M/2012 has been rejected by the Tribunal in view of no apparent mistake. However, in para 4 above, the Tribunal in appeal has mentioned that the Assessing Officer will verifying the documents including the Court orders affidavit dated 18.02.2008 and 13.08.2011 filed by Mr. Hazare present Miscellaneous Application before us to substantiate that any such affidavit was filed proceedings, which Assessing Officer. Any affidavit filed in the case of co be a basis for issuing identical direction in the case of the assessee. obviously included the affidavit dated 18.02.08 & 13.08.11 filed by Mr. Hazare and placed on record by the assessee. Keeping in view our above observation, we find that no glaring, obvious or patent mistake has been pointed out by the assessee which is apparent from the record and the same are misconceived. Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss this ground raised by the assessee in both the misc. application.” It is evident that Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee in ITA No. 5344/M/2012 has been rejected by the Tribunal in view of no apparent mistake. However, in para 4 above, the has mentioned that the Assessing Officer will verifying the documents including the Court orders affidavit dated 18.02.2008 and 13.08.2011 filed by Mr. Hazare present Miscellaneous Application before us, the assessee has failed bstantiate that any such affidavit was filed during appellate , which could be considered for restoring to Any affidavit filed in the case of co basis for issuing identical direction in the case of the assessee. Geeta A. Bhoir MA No. 674/M/2018 4 affidavit dated 18.02.08 & 13.08.11 filed by Keeping in view our above observation, we find that no patent mistake has been pointed out by the assessee which is apparent from the record and the same are misconceived. Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss this ground It is evident that Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee in ITA No. 5344/M/2012 has been rejected by the Tribunal in view of no apparent mistake. However, in para 4 above, the has mentioned that the Assessing Officer will verifying the documents including the Court orders including affidavit dated 18.02.2008 and 13.08.2011 filed by Mr. Hazare. In the assessee has failed during appellate considered for restoring to the Any affidavit filed in the case of co-owner cannot basis for issuing identical direction in the case of the assessee. 4.2 In absence of any evidence on record to substantiate that affidavit filed by Mr. Hazare case of the assessee as an additional evidence the order of the Tribunal request of the assessee for issuing direction for examination of the affidavit of Mr. Hazare by the Assessing Officer during proceeding consequent to matter restored to the Asses Tribunal. 5. In view of the above, the Miscellaneous Application stands dismissed with no order has to cost. Order pronounced in the Court on Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 15/07/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT In absence of any evidence on record to substantiate that affidavit filed by Mr. Hazare was produced before the Tribunal as an additional evidence, there is the order of the Tribunal (supra) and therefore, we reject the request of the assessee for issuing direction for examination of the affidavit of Mr. Hazare by the Assessing Officer during proceeding consequent to matter restored to the Assessing Officer by the In view of the above, the Miscellaneous Application stands dismissed with no order has to cost. ounced in the Court on 15/07/2022. Sd/ KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT Copy of the Order forwarded to : Geeta A. Bhoir MA No. 674/M/2018 5 In absence of any evidence on record to substantiate that was produced before the Tribunal in the there is no mistake in and therefore, we reject the request of the assessee for issuing direction for examination of the affidavit of Mr. Hazare by the Assessing Officer during proceeding sing Officer by the In view of the above, the Miscellaneous Application stands Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) MEMBER 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai Geeta A. Bhoir MA No. 674/M/2018 6 Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai