The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore V. Kiran Pandurang, Bangalore

MA 94/BANG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6230 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV NULVI
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM & Smt.Beena Pillai, JM MA No.94/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2011-2012 (Arising out of ITA No.2453/Bang/2018) The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 6(2)(1) Bangalore. v. Shri Kiran Panduranga No.48, 1 st B Main, J.S.Nagar Saraswathipuran, Nandini Lay Out, Rajajinagar Bengaluru – 560 096. PAN : AGKPP7893C. (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by : Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR Respondent by : Sri.Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate Date of Hearing : 17.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 17.12.2021 O R D E R Per B.R.Baskaran, AM: The Revenue has filed this Miscellaneous Application pointing that there is a mistake apparent from record in the order dated 07.07.2020 passed in the appeal cited in the caption. 2. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the assessee on the legal ground that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was not issued by the Assessing Officer subsequent to filing of the return by the assessee and accordingly quashed the assessment order. In the miscellaneous petition, it is stated that a valid notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issue don 14.07.2016, and hence, the Tribunal has committed an error MA No.94/Bang/2021 Sri. Kiran Panduranga. 2 in not appreciating that the notice was issued within the stipulated time prescribed u/s 143(2) of the Act. 3. At the time of hearing, the learned DR fairly submitted that in the notice u/s 143(2). referred by the Revenue in the miscellaneous petition, was issued in respect of another assessee, wherein the present assessee Sri.Kiran Panduranga was legal representative. 4. We heard the learned DR and perused the record. We are informed that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act referred in the miscellaneous application does not pertain to the assessee herein. In that view of the matter, the revenue has not pointed out any mistake apparent from record in the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the petition filed by the Revenue deserves to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 17 th day of December, 2021. Sd/- (Beena Pillai) Sd/- (B.R.Baskaran) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore; Dated : 17 th December, 2021. Devadas G* MA No.94/Bang/2021 Sri. Kiran Panduranga. 3 Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-6, Bangalore. 4. The Pr.CIT-6, Bangalore. 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru. 6. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Bangalore