ACIT, Ludhiana V. Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Ludhiana

MA 78/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3748 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.78/CHD/2015 IN ITA NO. 917/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 THE ACIT, VS GREATER LUDHIANA AREA CIRCLE VI, DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LUDHIANA. GLADA COMPLEX, FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA. PAN: AAALG1055F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.12.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THE ACIT CIRCLE-6, LUDHIANA FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.03.2015. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA 917/2014 WAS PARTLY ALLOWED VIDE OR DER DATED 31.03.2015. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE CONSIDERING GROUN D NO. 7 WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EARNEST MON EY RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS BUYERS HAS REFERRED TO THE OR DER IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 WHICH IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. HOWEVER, THE TR IBUNAL WHILE CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE IN PARA NO. 20 HAVE RE STORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FO R RE- DECIDING THE SAME BY CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL ASPECT S ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THE MATTER IS NOW RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-CONSIDERATION ON MERITS. N O MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT, THEREFORE, THIS PART OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. FURTHER, IT IS STATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION THAT WHILE CONSIDERING GROUND NO. 9 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS, T HE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF 2010-11 AND DELETED THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT WHILE CONSIDERING THIS ISSUE, EVEN THE ORDER OF 2009-10 HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN TO CONSIDERATION. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-1 1 HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING THE ADDITION. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11, DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, NO MISTAKE AP PARENT 3 ON RECORD HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT. WE MAY FURTHER NO TE THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON MERIT AND TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORD ERS DECIDED ON MERITS. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO RECALL THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL. 5. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE HAS NO MERIT. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED B Y REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPAURNA MEHROTRA) (BHAVNESH SA INI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH DECEMBER,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH