ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1), MUMBAI V. AJAYKANT RAMPRASAD RUIA, MUMBAI

MA 738/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6430 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN KUMARDR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMALA CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUM BAI , . . , BEFORE S/SHRI RAJENDRA, A.M. AND C.N. PRASAD,J.M. / MA NO.738/MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT OF / ITA NO.579/MUM/2013) /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10 DCIT-3(1)(1) INCOME TAX OFFICE,AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-20. VS. SHRI AJAYKANT RAMPRASAD RUIA 4 APPEJAY HOUSE, MUMBAI SAMACHAR MARG, MUMBAI-400 023. PAN: ACYPR 6429 E ( /APPLICANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI SUMAN KUMAR-DR ASSESSEE BY: MS. VIMALA CHOUDHARY / DATE OF HEARING: 13/04/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/04/2018 /ORDER , / PER RAJENDRA, AM - VIDE HIS APPLICATION,DATED 15/09/2017, THE (AO) HAS STATED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15/03/2017, THAT SAME W ERE TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD C HALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THAT WHILE PAR TLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THE TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED BACK SOME OF THE ISSUES TO TH E FILE OF THE FAA FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION WITH A DIRECTION TO AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING TO THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE AO SHOULD ALSO BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, THAT THE FAA SH OULD BE DIRECTED TO CALLED FOR A REPORT FROM THE AO BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 2. BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) STATED THAT THE F AA SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CALLED FOR A REPORT FROM THE AO, THAT AO SHOULD ALS O BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) STATED THAT THERE WA S NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER AND WE FIND THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE 2 TRIBUNAL HAD RESTORED BACK CERTAIN ISSUES TO THE FI LE OF THE FAA, THAT THE AO HAD NOT FILED ANY CROSS APPEAL IN THIS MATTER. WHETHER TO CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO IS THE DISCRETION OF THE FAA. BEING A JUDICIAL AUTHORITY HE KNOWS BET TER IS HOW TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL IF HE WOULD REQUIRE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE AO HE WOULD DIRECT TH E AO TO FILE DETAILS/EXPLANATION. AFTER RESTORING THAT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE FAA WE DO NOT WANT TO CURB HIS LIBERTY TO DECIDE THE APPEAL IS THE RIGHT PERSON TO TAKE AN APPROPRIATE D ECISION. AS THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AS ALLEGED BY THE AO, SO, WE ARE REJECTING IT. IT APPEARS THA T THE AO HAS NOT PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD THE OBJECT AND S COPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2)OF THE ACT. AS A RESULT,MISCELLANEO US APPLICATION FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH APRIL, 2018. 13 2018 SD/- SD/- ( . . / C.N . PRASAD ) RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 13/04/2018. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.