MOHD. SHAKEEL, Bhopal V. THE ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

MA 74/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4296 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2021
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH AGRAWAL; NISHA LAHOTI A RS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MANOS.74 TO 78/IND/2019 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NOS.37 TO 41/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07, MOHD. SHAKEEL SHAFIQUE VILLA, BUNGLOW NO.7, AHMEDABAD PALACE ROAD, BHOPAL / VS. AC IT - 3(1) BHOPAL ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. ARZPS 3328 P APPELLANT BY SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL & MISS NIS HA LAHOTI , A RS REVENUE BY SHRI HARSHIT BARI , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 12.02.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.02.2021 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS BY ASSESSEE ARE FILED SEEKING FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DAT ED 30.04.2019 PASSED IN IT(SS)A NOS. 37 TO 41/IND/2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07. MOHD. SHAKEEL BHOPAL /MANO.74 TO 78/IND/2016 2 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT INSTAN T PROCEEDING IS THE SECOND ROUND OF THE APPEALS AND THE ASSESSEE IS THE OTHER PERSON AND NOT THE SEARCHED PERSON. ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W. S. 153C/154. THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEALS ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION. THIS BENCH IN O NE OF THE GROUP CASE OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. MOHD. ATIQUE IN MANO.67 TO 73/IND/2019 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.11.2020 H AS ALLOWED THE MA STATING THAT THE ORDER IS RECALLED IN RE SPECT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE , THE PRESENT MAS ARE COVERED BY THE EARLIER AFORESAID ORDER . 3. PER CONTRA LD. DR OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE BEY OND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. HE FURTHER SUBMIT TED IF THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IT WOULD TANT AMOUNT TO REVIEWING OF THE ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED HAVING NO MERITS. HOWEVER, LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER IS CO VERED MOHD. SHAKEEL BHOPAL /MANO.74 TO 78/IND/2016 3 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE RIV AL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID ORDER, WE F IND THAT ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, WE HAVE RECORDED THE FINDING AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ADMITTEDLY, THE JUDGMENTS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF NANDLAL SACHDEVA (2012) 19 ITJ 361 WAS NOT BROUGHT TO NOTICE OF THIS TRIBUNAL. IT IS POINT ED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE ARE TWO CONFLICTING JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT. IT IS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF NANDLAL SACHDEVA (SUPRA) IS A LATER JUDGMEN T. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON' BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NO TICE AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ORDER WHICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY, BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE, THEREFORE, WE RECALL OUR ORD ER IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO POINTED OU T THAT IN EARLIER ROUND OF LITIGATION THE TRIBUNAL HA D DIRECTED TO COMPUTE AGRICULTURAL INCOME @ OF RS. 6, 000/- AND ALSO THE INCOME EARNED FROM LEASEHOLD AGRICULTU RAL LANDS WAS ALSO NOT DECIDED. CONSIDERING MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS WE DEEM IT PROPER THAT BOTH IS SUES MOHD. SHAKEEL BHOPAL /MANO.74 TO 78/IND/2016 4 REQUIRE THE DECISION AS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE ORDERS, SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED, WHICH IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. THEREFORE, WE RECALL OUR ORD ER DATED 30.04.2019 TO THE EXTENT OF DECIDING AFOREMENTIONED ISSUES AND REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO F IX THE APPEALS FOR HEARING ON 18.01.2021. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID ORDER OF THIS COORDINATE BENCH, WE DEEM IT P ROPER THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS REQUIRE THE DECISION AS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE ORDER, SOUGHT TO BE RECTIF IED, WHICH IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. THEREFORE, WE RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 30.04.2019 TO THE EXTENT OF DE CIDING AFOREMENTIONED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND REGISTRY IS DIREC TED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 18.03.2021 6. IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.02.2021 . SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 16 /02/2021 PATEL/PS MOHD. SHAKEEL BHOPAL /MANO.74 TO 78/IND/2016 5 COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDORE