ARTI GUPTA, MEERUT V. ITO, WARD- 1(1), MEERUT

MA 84/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2770 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Competent authority
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.84/Del/2019 (in ITA No.1209/Del/2018) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) Smt. Arti Gupta, vs. ITO, Ward 1 (1), C/o Kashyap & Co., CA Meerut. 114/214, City Centre, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut. (PAN : ASGPG9318K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri P.S. Kashyap, CA REVENUE BY : Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.07.2022 Date of Order : 20.09.2022 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : By way of this misc. application, assessee seeks rectification of mistaken apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal passed in ITA No.1209/Del/2018 for the AY 2010-11 vide order dated 29.10.2018. 2. The plea of the assessee in the misc. application reads as under :- “This petition relates to the assessment framed after reopening the case u/s 148 of the Act beyond four years. The mistake pointed out during the course of ITAT hearing that no approval u/s 151(2) by Pr.CIT has been accorded as she has not written “whether she is satisfied/ not satisfied on the reasons recorded by the A.O that it is case for notice u/s 148”. After seeing the MA NO.84/Del/2019 2 form of approval u/s 151(2) Your honours in the open court had commented that it is a case of no approval. However in the order passed by your honors this fact has been mistakenly overlooked. That thus there appears to be mistake apparent from records as pointed out on page no.27 of the paper book filed before your honors. The ground of the appellant ought to be allowed. It is therefore, very humbly submitted that to kindly pass an order rectifying the impugned order by considering and adjudicating the issue and the contention as submitted above.” 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the record. 4. We find that in the Tribunal order, the Tribunal has duly taken note of the ground by mentioning in para 3 of the order that in assessee’s ground, there is an issue of non-compliance of section 151(2). Thereafter on page 8 of the said order, following has been adjudicated :- “As regards non-compliance of section 151 (2) of the Act, we find that the Assessing Officer has taken requisite sanction from the competent authority to issue notice u/s 148, which is placed at page 27 of the paper book.” 5. From the above, we find that the Tribunal has duly taken note of the ground and adjudicated the same by a speaking order. Hence, the submission of the ld. counsel of the assessee that something else was commented in the Court and the order is different, cannot be allowed. The Tribunal has duly adjudicated the issue. This request by the assessee is a review of the order of the Tribunal which is not permissible u/s MA NO.84/Del/2019 3 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). Hence holding that there is no mistake apparent on the record, this misc. application is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20 th day of September, 2022. Sd/- sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated the 20 th day of September, 2022 TS Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A) 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.