Shri Sunil Bajranglal Hurkat, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

MA 9/AHD/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5108 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUTHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: JAVED KHAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,अहमदाबाद यायपीठ अहमदाबाद यायपीठअहमदाबाद यायपीठ अहमदाबाद यायपीठ ‘SMC’ अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद।अहमदाबाद। अहमदाबाद। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SMT.SUCHITRA RAGHUNATH KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No.09/Ahd/2024 IN ITA No.508/Ahd/2020 Asstt.Year :2012-13 Shri Sunil Bajranglal Hurkat 91, Hirabhai Market D.B.Road, Kankariya Ahmedabad 380 022. PAN : AADPH 0985 Q. Vs The ACIT, Cir.2(1)(A) Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri Javed Khan, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashok Kumar, Suthar, Sr.DR सुनवाई क तारीख/D a t e o f H e a r i n g : 0 2 / 0 8 / 2 0 2 4 घोषणा क तारीख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e me n t : 1 2 / 0 8 / 2 0 2 4 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R This Misc. Application is filed by the assessee in respect of order dated 08.2.20223. 2. The ld.AR submitted that, vide order dated 8.2.2023 passed in ITA No.508/Ahd/2020, inadvertently the name of the assessee was mentioned as “Sunil Bajranglal Hurkat, HUF”, whereas the assessee herein i.e. Sunil Bajranglal Hurkat” was the party respondent in the said ITA No.508/Ahd/2020. The ld.DR submitted that the same is typographical error and should be rectified. 3. Heard both the parties and it appears that, as pointed out by the ld.AR, there is typographical error in the name of the assessee mentioned against the ITA No.508/Ahd/2020, and the same is corrected and rectified as under: MA No.508/Ahd/2020 2 “The ACIT, Cir.2(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. Shri Sunil Bajranglal Hurkat” 4. In respect of other issues, the ld.AR submitted that in para 6 of the aforesaid Order dated 08.02.2023, the Tribunal had recorded that, assessee has purchased 55000 shares of the aforesaid company but has provided details only of 5000 shares and solely on the said basis, appeal of department was allowed. However, the ITAT had completely ignored the fact on record that pursuant to the purchase of shares by assessee, the same company had split up the share in the ratio of 1:10 in the year 2010 and on 17.08.2010, 1,00,000/- split shares were credited in the DEMAT account of assessee. This fact was submitted before the CIT (Appeals) who had taken cognizance of such splitting and thereafter has allowed the appeal of the assessee after taking into consideration all the aforementioned documentary evidence available on record. Thus, the amount of consideration paid by assessee towards purchase of shares remains the same as was the consideration of 10000 number of shares purchased by the assessee. There is no allegation at all that any shares more than 10000 were purchased by the assessee and separate purchase consideration over and above the amount already paid was ever paid by the assessee. It is only on the account of splitting of the shares that the number of shares held in the account of assessee got increased to 1,00,000/- from 10,000/-. Therefore, the crucial fact despite being available on record and also supported by documentary evidence was missed by the Tribunal, and therefore, on the basis of sole reason, the impugned order dated 8.2.20233 needs to be rectified. 5. The ld.DR submitted that there is a categorical finding given by the Tribunal in para-6 of the order, and the assessee is seeking review in the present case, which is not permitted in law. Thus, the present may be dismissed in respect of this issue. 6. Heard both the parties, and perused all the relevant material available on record. At the time of hearing, the ld.DR pointed out that there is a delay of 152 days in filing the present MA. At the time of hearing, when the ld.AR MA No.508/Ahd/2020 3 was confronted regarding this issue, whether the Tribunal has power to condone the delay in filing the MA belatedly before the Tribunal, the ld.AR relied on various decisions including that of the decision of the Tribunal and Hon’ble Apex Court. After taking cognizance of the said decisions, more specifically that of the decision of the Co-Ordinate Bench of ITAT, it appears that the assessee has pointed out the actual reason for delay. In the present case, the assessee has not pointed the exact reason, but stated that as the assessee was not aware about the intricacies on the legal aspect and filing of the appeal within stipulated time, the assessee could not file MA within the stipulated period of six months. After taking cognizance of the decision of the ITAT in the case of Rameshbhai V. Prajapati Vs. DCIT, (2021) 188 ITD 773 in extra-ordinary circumstances, we are condoning the delay, this condonation of delay should not be treated as precedent, as the facts of the present case are exceptional. 7. After going through the finding given in para-6 of the Tribunal’s order, it appears that the fact of splitting of the shares has not been taken into account. But certain details relating to the scrip totaling 55,000 shares was given on page no.6 of PB at the time of hearing of the appeal, which was overlooked by the ITAT. Thus, the order dated 8.2.2023 needs recalling. Hence, the order dated 8.2.2023 in ITA No.508/Ahd/2020 is recalled. The appeal be placed for hearing on 10.09.2024. Registry is directed to issue notice to both the parties. 8. In the result, Misc. Application of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 12 th August, 2024 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- ( SUCHITRA R. KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad, dated 12/08/2024 vk*