ACIT, New Delhi V. IAG Promoters & Developers P. Ltd., New Delhi

MA 753/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9916 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY BHAGWANI
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.753/Del/2017 (in ITA No.1674 & 1765/Del/2013) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ACIT, Central Circle 23, vs. M/s. IAG Promoter & Developers New Delhi. (P) Ltd., M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110 001. (PAN : AAACI7995R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Ajay Bhagwani, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.10.2022 Date of Order : 21.10.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : By way of this misc. application, Revenue seeks rectification of mistaken apparent from record under section 254 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') in the order of this Tribunal passed in ITA Nos.1674 & 1765/Del/2013 for the AY 2008-09 vide order dated 31.10.2014 in the case of M/s. IAG Promoter & Developers (P) Ltd. 2. The Revenue’s plea in the misc. application reads as under :- “3. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT is not acceptable on merits. The Hon'ble ITAT wrongly upheld the order of the CIT(A) and concluded that the Revenue had no grievance as the CIT(A) did not delete the addition of MA NO.753/Del/2017 2 the AO. The CIT(A), in fact, reduced the addition of the AO, wrongly holding that the interest was paid only on the extended period of cheques. During the Search and Seizure operation in the group of BPTP several incriminating documents were seized by the Department and the Hon'ble ITAT may decide the issues in this matter after examination of the seized material on record. The Hon'ble ITAT is the final fact-finding authority and was required to go into the reasons for paying the interest on PDCs and additional payments made to the venders. The other group companies are taking the plea in tribunal on the basis of this case.” 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. 4. Reading of the above makes it clear that Revenue wishes to get review of the order of ITAT u/s 254(2) of the Act under the garb of rectification of mistake. The plea is legally not sustainable. If the order of ITAT is not acceptable on merits to the Revenue, it cannot be addressed by filing a misc. application before the ITAT. Moreover, the submissions in the above misc. application that during search and seizure operation, several incriminating documents were seized, is wholly irrelevant inasmuch as in the order of ITAT nowhere it is the case that assessee has been granted relief in absence of incriminating material. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, Revenue’s misc. application has no legal substance. Hence, the misc. application of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 21 st day of October, 2022 after the conclusion of the hearing. Sd/- sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 21 st day of September, 2022/TS MA NO.753/Del/2017 3 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.