M/S. BANSI FINANCE , Ahmedabad V. THE DY,CIT CENT CIR .2(1), Ahmedabad

MA 73/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7459 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

, , . . , . , ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : A BENCH : AHMEDABAD BEFORE HONBLE SHRI D.K.TYAGI, J.M. & HONBLE SHR I A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M.) ## ## ## ## (M.A.) NO.73/AHD/2011 : BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.88 TO 22 .9.88 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO.123/AHD./2002) M/S. BANSI FINANCE, AHMEDABAD ... . ( / APPLICANT) -VS- PAN: DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD ( $%& / RESPONDENT) ' ( /APPLICANT BY : SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R. $%& ' ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.K.MISHRA, SR.D.R. ) * ' +! / DATE OF HEARING : 06/01/2012 ,- ' +! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/01/2012 . . . . / ORDER PER SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF CERTAIN MISTAKES ARISING OUT OF TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 18.02.2011 IN ITA NO.123/AHD/2002 FO R THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1988 TO 22.09.1988. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A. R. SUBMITTED THAT AT PAGE 5 PARA 6, 3 RD LINE, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER HAD MENTIONED CIT (A) HAD DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS.85,000/- WHEREAS THE CORRECT AMOUNT TO BE MENTIONED AS RS.6,15,000/- . 2 M.A.NO.73-AHD-2011 2.1 ON OUR PERUSAL OF THE CIT(A)S APPELLATE ORDER DATED 15.03.2002 AT PAGE NO.7, LAST LINE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT. THE LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE. THEREFORE, AT PAGE 5, PARA 6, 3 RD LINE OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SENTENCE SHALL STAND CORRECTED TO CIT(A) HAD DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS.6,15,000/- . IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 3. IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AT PA GE 6, PARA 7, LAST BUT 4 TH LINE, IT IS MENTIONED IN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER AFT ER CLAIMING DEPRECIATION OF RS.8,500/- BALANCE SUM OF RS.75,500/- IS SHOWN ON THE ASSETS SIDE IN THE TRIAL BALANCE AS ON 31.03.1999, WHEREAS CORRECT FI GURE TO BE MENTIONED IS BALANCE SUM OF RS.76,500/- . 3.1 THE LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSING THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, IT IS FOUND THAT THE APPLICAN T IS CORRECT IN ITS CLAIM BECAUSE DEPRECIATION WORKS OUT AT 10% ON RS.85,000/ - IS RS.8,500/- AND THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE WILL BE RS.76,500/- I.E. RS. 85,000/- MINUS RS.8,500/. THEREFORE, AT PAGE 6, PARA 7, LAST BUT 4 TH LINE OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, RS.75,500/- WILL STAND CORRECTED TO BE RS.76,500/- . IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 4. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN PARA 10, 5 TH LINE FROM TOP OF PAGE 9 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 18/02/2 011, IT IS MENTIONED UNACCOUNTED ASSETS OF RS.42,41,000/- WHEREAS THE CORRECT AMOUNT TO BE STATED IS RS.42,51,000/- . 4.1 THE LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ABOVE SUBMIS SION OF THE LD. A.R. ON PERUSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.09.2000, PAR A 16, IT IS APPARENT 3 M.A.NO.73-AHD-2011 THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS CORRECT. THEREFORE, IN THE SAID 5 TH LINE OF PAGE 9 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 18/02/2011, THE AMOUN T STANDS CORRECTED TO RS.42,51,000/- . IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMS THAT AT PAGE 10, PAR A 14, 2 ND LINE OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT A SUM OF RS .41,51,000/- IS SHOWN AS INVESTMENT IN BANSI FINANCE, WHEREAS THE CORRECT F IGURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RS.14,51,000/- . 5.1 THE LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION O F THE LD. A.R. ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO DATED 28.09.2000, PARA 16, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT. THEREFORE, IN THE 2 ND LINE OF PARA 14, PAGE 10 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 18/02/2011, T HE AMOUNT STANDS CORRECTED TO BE SUM OF RS.14,51,000/- . IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AT PAGE 12, PARA 14(S), 3 RD LINE OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED RET URN FILED U/S.158BC FOR RS.25,000/-, WHEREAS THE CORRECT FIGURE SHOULD BE RS.25,00,000/- . 6.1 THE LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ABOVE SUBMIS SION OF THE LD. A.R. ON PERUSING THE FIRST PAGE OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER D ATED 15.03.2002, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT. THEREFORE, THE SAID FIGURE WILL STAND CORRECTED TO RS.25 LACS . IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. / . ' ,- 0 1 13 / 01 /201 2 2 ' * 3 SD/- SD/- (D.K.TYAGI) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED : /01/2012 4 M.A.NO.73-AHD-2011 . . . . ' '' ' $+# $+# $+# $+# 5#-+1 5#-+1 5#-+1 5#-+1- -- - 1. %& 2. $%& 3. + ); 4. );- - 5. #> $+ , , 3 6. A/ . , B/ D , 3 TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S.