Moly Metal Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, (OSD)-I, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

MA 98/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2255 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA , VICE PRESIDENT AND .., ! '# '# '# '# SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $%&', () * M.A. NO. 98/AHD/2014 (IN ITA NO. 528/AHD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 M/S MOLY METAL PVT. LTD. 202, ADITYA BUILDING MITHAKHALI SIX ROADS, MITHAKALI AHMADABAD-380006 V/S . ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD PAN NO. A AECM6720C (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) +, - . ( /BY APPELLANT SHRI S. N. DIVETIA, A.R. /0+, - . ( /BY RESPONDENT SHRI NIMESH YADAV, SR. D.R. 1 - %') /DATE OF HEARING 05.09.2014 23 4 - %') /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05.09.2014 O R D E R PER : SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THROUGH THIS M.A., THE ASSESSEE WANTS US TO RECALL THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.528/AHD/2013, ORDER DATED 17.01.2014. 2. THROUGH THE M.A., THE LD. A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THA T DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL, ASSE SSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 25.04.2013 AS PER RULE 19 OF ITAT RULES FOR ADMISSION OF M.A. NO. 98/AHD/2014 A.Y. 09-10 (MOLY METAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT) PAGE 2 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHI LE DECIDING THE GROUND ABOUT THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION, THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE AND THE OTHER EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD WERE NOT CONSIDERE D BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE NON CO NSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED AT THE TIME OF HEARING WAS A MIS TAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S. 254(2 ) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE PRAYED FOR RECALLING THE ORDER. 3. LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT TRIB UNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS CONSIDERED THE FACTS AN D THERE WAS NO APPARENT MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES RECALLING OF THE ORDER. HE, THUS, OPPOSED THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 19 OF ITAT RULES AND HAD ALSO SUBMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT IN TH E ORDER PASSED, THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, FEEL THAT IN THE PRES ENT CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING OR MENTION ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF A DDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AN APPARENT MISTAKE HAS OCCURRED. WE, THEREFORE, RECALL THE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.528/AHD/2013, DATED 17.01.20 14 FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 19 OF THE ITAT RULES. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE HE ARING ON 05.11.2014. SINCE M.A. NO. 98/AHD/2014 A.Y. 09-10 (MOLY METAL PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT) PAGE 3 THE DATE OF HEARING HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, THE ISSUANCE OF SEPARATE NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE M.A. IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05/09/2014 SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURV EDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA (5 (5 (5 (5 - -- - /%6 /%6 /%6 /%6 7(64% 7(64% 7(64% 7(64% / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. +, / APPELLANT 2. /0+, / RESPONDENT 3. ## % ; / CONCERNED CIT 4. ;- / CIT (A) 5. 6? /% , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. A BC / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ (5 (, / # , E