BLUE FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(1)(3), MUMBAI

MA 783/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6446 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: JAYESH DEDHIA
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM ./ M .A. NO. 783/MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2425/MUM/2013) ( / ASSE SSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) BLUE FOODS P. LTD., RASHID MANSION, GR. FLOOR, WORLI POINT, MUMBAI - 400 018 / VS. ITO - 6(1)(3) R. NO. 508, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AABCB 4617 L ( / APPELLAN T ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI JAYESH DEDHIA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAM TIWARI / DATE OF HEARING : 06.04.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.04 .2018 / O R D E R PER S HAMIM YAHYA, A. M.: BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS RECALL OF TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2425/MUM/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 VIDE ORDER DATED 01.06.2017. 2. WE FIND THAT IN THE ORDER DATED 01.06.20 17; THE ITAT HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. AT THE OUTSET IN THIS CASE, LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSES SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED COUNS EL FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE REVISED 2 M A NO. 783/MUM/2017 BLUE FOODS P. LTD. COMPUTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS, THE ISSUE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN VIEW OF THE REVISED COMPUTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS. 7. SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS FAIRLY AGREEING BEFORE US THAT THERE HAS BEEN A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUBMITTING THE COMPUTATIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTEREST OF JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT ALL T HE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL NEED TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH TAKING INTO THE ACCOUNT THE REVISED COMPUTATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO ADD THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. NOW BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE MAKES FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: 8. WE FEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MISINTERPRETED THE HONBLE TRIBUNALS FINDINGS AS NOTHING IS MENTION ABOUT FILING AND ADMISSION OF REVISED NET WORTH CERTIFICATE UND ER SECTION 50B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, ISSUED BY THE AUDITOR. 9. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED THE REVISED COMPUTATION AS REVISED NET WORTH CERTIFICATE OF THE AUDITOR WHICH WAS DETERMINED AT RS.( - )3,31,12,830. 4. A READING OF THE ABOVE ORDER A ND THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLI CATION FOR RECTIFICATION THEREOF , CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THIS IS A FRIVOLOUS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ITA T HAS DULY REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE S UBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. IT WAS DULY NOTED THAT THE COMPUTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WRONG AND THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS DULY CONCEDED THAT AND, THEREFORE, THE MATTER WAS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE REVISED COMPUTATION AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION , IT IS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ITAT SHOULD FURTHER CLARIFY THE 3 M A NO. 783/MUM/2017 BLUE FOODS P. LTD. ORDER ALREADY GIVEN . I N OU R CONSIDERED OPINION , THE ITATS ORDER IS QUITE AMBIGUOUS AND CLEAR. WE DO NOT FIND ANY NEED FOR ISSUING RECTIFICATION ORDER IN THIS REGARD. 5. IN THE RESULT, TH IS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.04.2018 SD/ - SD/ - ( PAWAN SINGH ) (S HAMIM YAHYA) / J UDICIAL MEMBER / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 09.04.2018 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI