M/s. Krishna Corporation, Mumbai V. The ACIT., Inv.Circle-1, Bhavnagar

MA 87/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8475 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A J PAREKH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: G.C. GUPTA, V.P AND , SHRI A.K. GARODIA, AC COUNTANT MEMBER M/S KRISHNA CORPORATION, BHAVNAGAR (APPELLANT) PAN NO. AACFK2773Q VS. THE ACIT INV. CIRCLE I, (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI RAHUL KUMAR, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.J. PAREKH, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 06-07-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-07-2012 / ORDER PER : A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS MA IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MA THAT IN TRIBUNALS ORDER IT WAS DECIDED BY TRIBUNAL THAT GROUND NO. 1 TO 8 ARE TECHNICAL ISSUE S AND NO SERIOUS ARGUMENT WAS RAISED BY LD. A.R. IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MA THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT NO SERIOUS ARGUMENT WAS RAISED IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1- M.A. NO.87/AHD/2012 A. Y. 01-04-90TO 07-11-2000 IN I.T. (SS) 41/AHD/2007 M.A. NO 87 OF 2012 A.Y:-0 1-04-90 TO 07-11-2000 2 8 PARTICULARLY WHEN WRITTEN ARGUMENTS WERE ALSO FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE REFERRING THESE GROUNDS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS THERE IS APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGN ED ORDER AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE RECALLED. LD. D.R. ARGUED AND SUBMITTED THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT GROUND NO. 1-8 WERE NEVER SERIOUSLY ARGUED BY LD. A.R. THEREFORE THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBU NALS ORDER. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND W E FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28 TH , APRIL 2011 WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED REGARDIN G VALIDITY OF THE JURISDICTION OF A.O. UNDER SECTION 158 BD AND THESE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. HENCE, THERE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE. IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNALS ORDER AND HENC E, WE RECALL THIS IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. REGISTRY IS DI RECTED TO FIX THIS APPEAL FOR HEARING ON 5 TH SEPTEMBER,2012. 3. IN THE RESULT, THIS MA IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ABOVE. SD/- SD/- (G.C. GUPTA) (A.K.GARODIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEM BER A. KUMAR, P.S. / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. M.A. NO 87 OF 2012 A.Y:-0 1-04-90 TO 07-11-2000 3 BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '# STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 09-07-2012 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE N.A. 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 10-07-2012 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THIS FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON