M/s K.S. Conduit, Bhawanigarh V. ACIT, Patiala

MA 68/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5755 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDRAKANTADR
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.68 /CHD/2013 IN IT(SS)A. NO.14/CHD/1996 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1986-87 TO 1996-97) M/S K.S. CONDUIT, VS. THE A.C.I.T., BHAWANIGARH. INVESTIGATION CIRCLE , PATIALA PAN/GIR NO.28-060-FN-0798 AND M.A.NO.69 /CHD/2013 IN IT(SS)A. NO.16/CHD/1996 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1986-87 TO 1996-97) M/S SUPER PIPES, VS. THE A.C.I.T., BHAWANIGARH. INVESTIGATION CIRCLE , PATIALA PAN/GIR NO.28-060-FN-0798 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.K. MUKHI RESPONDENT BY : MS.CHANDRA KANTA,DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2017 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : BOTH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY SEPARATE APPLICANTS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.5.2013 RELATING TO BLOCK PERIOD 1986-87 TO 1996-97. 2 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE RECTIFICATION BEING SOUGHT IN BOTH THE CASES WAS SIMILAR AND, THEREFORE , BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. WE SHALL FIRST BE DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION IN M.A.NO.68/CHD/2013. M.A.NO.68/CHD/2013 : 4. VIDE THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE REASON THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD MISTAKENLY DISMISSED, GROUND NO.9 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT PRESSED, WHILE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTEST ED THE GROUND. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE I. T.A.T. WHEREIN GROUND NO.9 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISM ISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THEREAFTER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASS ESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE I.T.A .T. WHEREIN WITH RESPECT TO GROUND NO.9 IT WAS STATED A S UNDER: THAT AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 9. THE SAME STANDS DISPOSED OFF AS PER PARA 16 TO 16.2 AT PAGE 24-25 OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DATED 25.07.2001, WHEREIN THE APPELLANT RELIES UPON THE SAME AND PRAYS THAT THE S AME 3 MAY BE DISPOSED OFF AS IT IS. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, STATED THAT THE I.T.A.T. HAD ERRED IN TREATING THE SAID GROUND AS NOT PRESSED. 7. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDED THAT IT W AS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN THE ORDER THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD NOT PRESSED THE SAID GROUND AND, THEREFORE, THE I.T .A.T. HAD RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE SAME. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AND DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. WE ARE CONVINCED BY THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THAT VIS--VIS GROUND NO.9 RAISED IN ITS A PPEAL IN ITA NO.14/CHD/1996 ITS CONTENTION BEFORE THE I.T.A. T. WAS TO DEAL WITH THE SAME AS PER THE I.T.A.T.S EARLIER ORDER DATED 25.7.2001. COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FI LED BEFORE US CLEARLY BRING OUT THIS CONTENTION. THE RE VENUE ON THE OTHER HAND HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENT BEFORE US WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D SUBMITTED TO NOT AGITATING THE SAID GROUND. THE DIS MISSAL OF THE AFORESAID GROUND AS NOT PRESSED IS A MISTAKE AND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWE D ON THIS ISSUE. WE FURTHER DIRECT THAT THE ORDER PASSE D BY THE I.T.A.T. BE RECALLED FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ADJ UDICATING GROUND NO.9 AFRESH AND THE APPEAL BE FIXED FOR HEAR ING ON 12.9.2017. NO SEPARATE NOTICE FOR HEARING IS TO BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES. 4 9. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS THEREFORE ALLOWED IN THE ABOVE TERMS. M.A.NO.69/CHD/2013 : 10. VIDE THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.69/CHD/2 013 ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT RECTIFICATION VIS--VI S IDENTICAL ISSUE, OF GROUND NO.7 ITS APPEAL IN ITA NO.16/CHD/1996, HAVING BEEN DISMISSED BY THE I.T.A. T. AS NOT PRESSED, WHILE THE SAME WAS CONTESTED ON THE BA SIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THE FACT OF FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS VIS A VIS GROUND NO.7 AS UNDER: 14.THAT AS REGARDS GROUND NO.7,THE SAME STANDS DISPOSED OFF AS GROUND NO.9 OF M/S K.S CONDUIT IN ITA NO NO.14/CHANDI/1996 PER PARA 16 TO 16.2 AT PAGE 24-25 OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 25-07 2001,WHEREIN THE APPELLANT RELIES UPON THE SAME AND PRAYS THAT THE SAME MAY BE DISPOSED OFF AS IT IS. 11. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE IN MA NO.68/CHD/2013 ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE RECALL OF THE O RDER OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO FOR THE LIMIT ED PURPOSE TO ADJUDICATE GROUND NO.7 RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE SAME FOR HEARING ON 12.09.17.NO SEPARATE NOTICE FOR HEARING BE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES. 12. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED IN THE ABOVE TERMS. 5 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ONS FILED BY THE APPLICANT STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31 ST AUGUST, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH