Sh. Rajesh Agarwal (HUF), Meerut V. ITO, Ghaziabad

MA 83/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3811 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

1 M.A No. 83/Del/2020 Sh. Rajesh Agarwal, (HUF) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SH N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A NO.83 /Del/2020 (A.Y 2005-06) in (I.T.A .No.5440/Del/2014) Sh. Rajesh Kumar Agaarwal(HUF) C/p. Malik & Co. 305/7, Thapar Nagar, Meerut PAN: AAGHR8866K (APPLICANT) vs ITO Ward-2(2) Ghaziabad (RESPONDENT) Applicant by Sh. Sanjay Mailk, Adv & Sh. Sankalp Malik, Adv Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee seeking for recalling the order dated order dated 15/01/2020 in ITA No. 5440/Del/2014 for Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that, the Tribunal has not understood and considered the factual aspects which are important on the ultimate decision. The Ld. Counsel has also and taken us through order of the Tribunal and submitted that, the Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the fact and not considered the paper book which is error apparent from the record. Therefore, the present M.A deserves to be allowed. Date of Hearing 24.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 24.06.2022 2 M.A No. 83/Del/2020 Sh. Rajesh Agarwal, (HUF) 3. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that, the Tribunal cannot review its own order and the scope under Section 254(2) of the I.T Act is very limited. Further, submitted that, there is no error apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal. 4. We have heared the parties and verified the material on record and gave our thoughtful consideration. The main contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that, the Tribunal has committed the error in understanding factual aspect and not considered the paper book filed by the assessee. 5. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal, the order of the Tribunal reveals that, the Tribunal has considered all the points argued before the Bench and passed the detailed final order by dismissing the appeal. The scope of Section 254(2) of the I.T Act is very limited wherein the Tribunal cannot revisit the facts and pass the order on the Miscellaneous Application. Unless there is an error apparent on record, the Tribunal cannot exercise the jurisdiction conferred u/s 254(2) of the Act. In our opinion, the claim of the Advocate for the assessee of ‘non considering of paper book and the factual aspects’ by the Tribunal cannot be appreciated in the present M.A., which are not error apparent on record. Further, we do not find any error apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the M.A. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24 th June , 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. BILLAIYA ) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.,) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24 th June, 2022. 3 M.A No. 83/Del/2020 Sh. Rajesh Agarwal, (HUF) R.N Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi 4 M.A No. 83/Del/2020 Sh. Rajesh Agarwal, (HUF)