Smt. Renu Agarwal, Agra V. The ITO, Agra

MA 8/AGR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3687 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ROOP KISHORE AGARWAL
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.08/AGR/2010 (IN ITA NO.595/AGR/2008 & C.O. NO.80/AGR/2008) ASST. YEAR: 2000-01 SMT. RENU AGARWAL, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 22/44, NORTH VIJAY NAGAR, WARD 1(3), AGRA. AGRA (PAN : ABDPA 2158 B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ROOP KISHORE AGARWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VINOD KUMAR, JR. D.R. ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M.: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (M.A.) HAS BEEN FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 18.11.2009 MENTIONING THAT IN T HE TITLE OF THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAS INCORRECTLY MENTIONED THE A.Y. 2001-02 WHILE THE AP PEAL AS WELL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION RELATE TO THE A.Y. 2000-01. 2. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDER ING THE SAME, WE FIND THAT A MISTAKE HAS CREPT INTO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. WE ACCORDIN GLY ALLOW THE FIRST PART OF THE M.A. AND AMEND THE TITLE OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2009. THE TITLE OF THE ORDER WILL READ AS UNDER :- 2 ITA NO.595/AGR/2008 ASST. YEAR: 2000-01 & C.O. NO.80/AGR/2008 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.595/AGR/2008) ASST. YEAR: 2000-01 3. THE SECOND MISTAKE, WHICH HAS BEEN POINTED OUT I N THE M.A., WAS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE FRESH MATERIAL WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. IT WAS CONTEND THAT IN THE PAPER BOOK THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE YEAR-WISE BREAK-UP OF THE INVESTMENTS AS OBSERVED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF A PPEAL BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE HONBLE BENCH. THE BENCH HAS CLEARLY RELIED UPON THE RECEIPTS OF THE INVESTMENTS DECLARED AT RS.35,47,400/- AS AGAINST T HE VALUATION ESTIMATED AT RS.35,75,489/-. THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED DUE TO THE NEGLIGIBLE DIFFERENCE . 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THIS TRIBU NAL UNDER SECTION 254(2) DOES NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S ECTION 254(1). IF THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A VIEW AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS ON RECORD, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT A MISTAKE HAS OCCURRED INTO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY RESTORE D THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR EXAMINING THE FRESH MATERIAL AND TO DECIDE THE ISSU E DENOVO AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ARRIVING SO, H AS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH THE FACT THAT NO DETAILS HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTIONS 143(2), 142 (1) & 131 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF BREAK-UP OF THE INVESTMENTS AND BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY THE NOTICE UNDER SECTIONS 143(2), 142(1) & 131 OF THE ACT. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE M.A. IS DISMISSED. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.07.2010) SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (P.K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: AGRA DATE: 23 RD JULY, 2010. PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY