Amrik Singh Saluja, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

MA 81/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6914 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: P S SHARDA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I NEW DELHI (FRIDAY) BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL M.A. NO. 81/DEL/2011 ( IN ITA NO.2174/DEL/05 ) ASSTT. YR: 1998-99 SHRI AMRIK SINGH SALUJA, VS. DCIT INV. CIR. 15(1 ), A-89, SAINIK FARMS, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN/GIR NO. 109-A ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHRI P.S. SHARDA ADV. RESPONDENT BY: MS. Y. KAKKAR SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M : THIS IS ASSESSEES MISC. APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF ITAT ORDER DATED 5-10-2009 PASSED IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL. 2. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT A MENDED GROUNDS WERE FILED DURING THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT. ASSESSEE IN PARA 3 OF HIS P ETITION HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES DUE TO WHICH NO GROUND WAS SPECIFICALLY PRESSED, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE ITA T ORDER, WHICH REFERS TO ONLY INITIAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IT IS NOW PLEADED I N ANY CASE AMENDED GROUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED, WHICH IS A MISTAK E APPARENT FROM RECORD, SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. 2 3. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDS THAT ITA T IN ITS ORDER IN THE VERY FIRST LINE ITSELF HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS RAISED ONLY ONE GROUND, CONTAINED THREE SUB-GROUND, WHICH ARE REPRO DUCED. ONCE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ASSESSEE PLEADS THAT THERE IS ONL Y ONE ISSUE FOR ADJUDICATION, IN THAT CASE THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OR AMENDED GROUNDS WILL NOT BE MATERIAL TO APPEAL. LEARNED COUNSEL RAISED THE I SSUE ABOUT NON- CONSIDERATION OF PARTICULAR GROUND ABOUT SECRET ME ETING OF SENIOR OFFICERS OF I.T. DEPARTMENT AND THEIR ILLEGAL BINDING DIRECTIO NS TO AO, THE SAME HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), WHO WILL DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS. THE ORDER IN QUESTI ON WAS RENDERED ON 5-10- 2009 AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE MA ON 10-3-2011, TH US TAKING TIME OF ONE AND HALF YEAR TO BECOME WISER THAT THE SPECIFIC GRO UNDS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. THE HEARING BEFORE THE ITAT PROCEEDED O N THE BASIS OF ABOVE GROUND ONLY WHICH IS MENTIONED BY ITAT IN ITS ORD ER AND SUITABLE RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY SETTING ASIDE THIS I SSUE. INTERPRETATION OR REVIEW OF ITATS ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2 ). PETITION MAY BE DISMISSED ACCORDINGLY. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED DR. SINCE ONLY ONE GROUND WAS SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE LEAR NED COUNSEL, THE SAME WAS HEARD AND DECIDED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED TH IS IN PARA 3 OF M.A. PETITION THAT THIS WAS THE ONLY GROUND WHICH WAS AR GUED AND THERE WERE CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES DUE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ARGUED OTHER GROUNDS. THIS MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER. SEC. 254(2) DOES NOT ALLOW FOR RECTIFICATION WHICH AMOUNTS TO INTERPRETATION OR RECONSIDERATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH THE ASSES SEE MAY HAVE FOR NOT 3 ARGUING THE GROUNDS. IN VIEW THEREOF WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE, MUCH LESS APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WHICH C AN BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2). ACCORDINGLY MA IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26-08-2011. SD/- SD/- ( K.G. BANSAL ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26-08-2011. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR