M/s. Gurudayal Santosh Kumar, Kolkata V. ITO, Ward-42(1), Kolkata, Kolkata

MA 79/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9459 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K PRAMANICK LD
• Assessee Lawyers: J C SANYAL LD

Judgement Text

, C, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C B ENCH : KOLKATA [ , ! 1#$, ] [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR,, AM & HONBLE S HRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM %% $ & /M.A. NO.79/KOL/2012 [IN I.T A NO.898/KOL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 M/S. GURDAYAL SANTOSH KUMAR VS. I .T.O WARD 42(1), KOLKATA PAN: AAFFG 3708A [ /APPLICANT ] [)#*/ RESPONDENT ] /APPLICANT BY : SHRI J.C. SANYAL, ADVOCATE, LD.AR )#* / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.K. PRAMANICK, LD . SR.DR $, - . /DATE OF HEARING : 19-10-2012 /0 - . /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/10/2012 1 /ORDER ! 1#$, SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.898/KOL/2011 DATED 19-07-2011 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. SHRI J.C. SANYAL, ADVOCATE, LEARNED .AR REPRESE NTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI A.K. PRAMANICK, LEARNED SR.DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD WHEN PASSING ITS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA N O. 898/KOL/2011 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.5 O F ASSESSEES APPEAL, WHICH WAS IN RESPECT OF THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.25,650/- ON ACCO UNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF STOCK AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AT THE T IME OF HEARING IT WAS INFORMED BY THE BENCH THAT THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL WOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE BELIEVED THAT THIS ISSUE WOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT ONLY W HEN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID DIRECTION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN IN THE SAID ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL IN ITA NO.898/KOL/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 DATED 19-07-2011 MAY BE RECALLED TO AD JUDICATE THE SAID GROUND NO. 5 AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED SR.DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPO RTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS [M.A. NO.79/KOL/12-C-GM 2 SUBMISSION THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE U/S. 254(2) OF THE I.T ACT 1961 WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE CONSIDE RED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.898/KOL/20 11 DATED 19-07-2011, SHOWS THAT IN THE SAID ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE IN SO FAR AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN RESPECT OF RENTA L INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAS 7,8 & 9 OF ITS ORDER HELD THAT THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS IN REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF ADDITION RS.25,650/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFER ENCE IN THE VALUATION OF STOCK AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. A PERUSAL OF GROUND NO.5 AS RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL SHOWS THAT THE SAID GROUND INCLUDES THE ISSUE OF ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF STOCK AS ALSO THE ISSUE OF GODOWN RENT, WHICH HAS BEEN SET ASIDE. THU S, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE GENUINE AND THE ASSESS EE SHOULD BE GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ITS SUBMISSION ON THE SAID GROUND. IN THESE CIRCUM STANCES, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 898/KOL/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 DATED 19-07-2011 STANDS RECALLED FOR THE LIMITED EXTENT OF ADJUDICATING GROUND NO.5 OF ASSESSEES AP PEAL. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF HEARING BY ISSUING NOTICES TO THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED 1 2 $ 3 45 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31-10-2012 SD/- SD/- [ , ] [ ! 1#$ , ] [ PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] [GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] . / DATED 31-10-2012 1 - 66% 7%0/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. /APPLICANT : M/S. GURUDAYAL SANTOSH KUMAR 107 MAHARSHI DEBENDR A ROAD, KOL-5 2 )#* / RESPONDENT : ITO WARD 42(1), 18 RABINDRA SARANI, KOL-1. 3. 61$/ CIT, 4. 61$ ()/ CIT(A), 5. ?63 6$/ DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA **PP/SPS [)% 6/ TRUE COPY] 1$/ BY ORDER, 4 /ASSTT REGISTRAR.