Shri Sardar (Mehsana) Owners Association, Mehsana V. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

MA 9/AHD/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0159 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SHYAM PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL KSHTRIYA
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH (BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) M.A. NO: 9/AHD/2021 (IN ITA NOS. 308/AHD/2017) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SHRI SARDAR (MEHSANA) OWNERS ASSOCIATION, PARVATINAGAR SOCIETY, MALGODOWN ROAD, MEHSANA PAN NO. AACAS9854C V/S ACIT MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANIL KSHTRIYA, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : DR. SHYAM PRASAD, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 07 -05-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-07-2021 PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. VIDE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE HAVE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD PERTAINING TO THE ITAT ORDER IN ITA NO. 308/AHD/2017. THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THESE TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION REPRODUCED AS UNDER: M.A. NO. 9/AHD/2021 . A.Y. 2008-09 2 SI. NO PAGE NO OF ORDER. PLACE WHERE IT APPEARS MATTER MISTAKENLY TYPED AS IT SHOULD BE PUT AS 1 2 FIRST LINE OF PARA 3 LD.A.O. RECEIVED AN INFORMATION FROM ADIT (INV.), MEHSANA ON 19.03.2015 IT IS THE CASE OF LD. A.O. THAT HE RECEIVED AN INFORMATION FROM ADIT (INV.), MEHSANA ON 19.03.2015 (KINDLY REFER TO UN- NUMBERED PARA 1 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER & THE RE LIANCE PLACED BY LD. CIT D.R. IN THIS REGARD DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING) 2 16 THIRD LINE OF SECOND PARA THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT A COMMUNICATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISCHARGE OF ITS OFFICIAL DUTIES . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT A COMMUNICATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES ..... (KINDLY REFER TO UN- NUMBERED PARA 1 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER) 3 23 TWELTH LINE OF UPPER HALF AS PER THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 06.01.2003 IT IS MENTIONED.. AS PER THE AGREEMEN T FOR SALE DATED 06.01.2007 IT IS MENTIONED.... (KINDLY REFER TO DP. B. P. NO. 58 R.W. APB PAGE NO. 38 BEING ITS FREE ENGLISH TRANSLATION) 4 26 THIRD LINE OF PARA 13 REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY ANY OTHER AUTHORITY REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ANY OTHER AUTHORITY.. (KINDLY REFER TO DP.B.P NO. 36) 2. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE POINTED OUT AT SERIAL NO. 1 AS ABOVE STATING THAT INSTEAD OF AO RECEIVED AN INFORMATION FROM ADIT, IT SHOULD BE THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT HE RECEIVED AN INFORMATION FROM THE ADIT. WE FIND THAT THE CORRECT SENTENCE BE READ AS M.A. NO. 9/AHD/2021 . A.Y. 2008-09 3 AO HAS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT HE RECEIVED AN INFORMATION FROM THE ADIT. 3. REGARDING MISTAKE POINTED OUT AT SERIAL NO. 2, IT IS STATED THAT COMMUNICATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISCHARGE OF ITS OFFICIAL DUTY AT THIRD LINE OF THE 2 ND PARA IN THE ITAT ORDER. IN THIS REGARD, WE CONSIDER THAT THERE IS TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEREFORE INSTEAD OF DISCHARGE OF ITS OFFICIAL DUTIES, IT SHOULD BE READ AS IN DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTY. 4. REGARDING MISTAKE POINTED OUT AT SERIAL NO. 3, IT IS STATED THAT AT PAGE NO. 23 OF THE ITAT ORDER ON TWELFTH LINE OF UPPER HALF, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 06.01.2003. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE AS PER THE AGREEMENT SALE DATED 06.01.2007. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR MENTIONING THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AS 06.01.2007 INSTEAD OF CORRECT DATE OF AGREEMENT I.E. 06.01.2007. THEREFORE, THE SAME WE READ AS 06.01.2007. 5. REGARDING MISTAKE POINTED OUT AT SERIAL NO. 4, THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT AT PAGE NO. 26 ON PARA 13 AT THIRD LINE, IT WAS STATED THAT THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE THAT THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENT WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEREFORE INSTEAD OF ASSESSEE IT SHOULD BE READ AS ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT AT PAGE NO. 24 ON PARA 11 OF THE ITAT ORDER, THE DATE OF THE LETTER WAS NOT MENTIONED. IN THIS REGARD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT ERROR FROM RECORD SINCE THE DATE OF LETTER HAS ALREADY BEEN CLARIFIED AS 31 ST MARCH, 2015 AT PARA 13 ON PAGE 26 OF THE ITAT ORDER. M.A. NO. 9/AHD/2021 . A.Y. 2008-09 4 7. ACCORDINGLY, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS CITED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20 - 07- 2021 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 20/07/2021 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD