"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION Nos. 133 to 136/Ahd/2025 IN आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 830 to 833/Ahd/2023 (िनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2017-18) Suresh Prabhulal Kabra C/o. Kabra & Co. B/h. Kikabhatt Ni Pole, Lunsavad, Dariapur, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380001 बनाम/ Vs. ITO Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad Öथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AFTPK6775Q (Appellant) (Respondent in MA) .. (Respondent) (Applicant in MA) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Parin Shah, AR Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 09/01/2026 Date of Pronouncement 13/01/2026 (आदेश)/ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM: The present Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by the Revenue seeking rectification in consolidated order passed by the ITAT in ITA Nos. 830 to 833/Ahd/2023, dated 03.09.2025. Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos. 133 to 136/Ahd/2025 [ITO vs. Suresh Prabhulal] A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2017-18 - 2 – 2. In the application filed by the Department it has been contended that the ITAT had sought verification report from the Department on a factual contention made by the assessee and on non-receipt of the said report, the ITAT had proceeded to adjudicate the issue holding the factual contention of the assessee to have remained uncontroverted. The contention made before us in this miscellaneous application is that the report was submitted to the Ld. CIT.DR but the same remained to be presented to the Court and accordingly, the Department had sought recall of the order to consider the report filed by the AO in this regard. Other than stating so, the Ld. DR was unable to point out any mistake in the order passed by the ITAT. 3. Since, it is an admitted fact that the verification report sought for by the Bench was not furnished during the course of hearing before the ITAT, there is no mistake, we hold, in the order of the ITAT, as admitted by the Ld. DR also before us. The submission made by the Ld. DR that a report of the AO was actually existing and given to the Ld. DR does not warrant recall of the order of the ITAT, since, even if true it exhibits clear laxity on the part of the Department for not having furnished the said report during the course of hearing before us and the Revenue cannot be, therefore, given any benefit of the report so obtained. Printed from counselvise.com MA Nos. 133 to 136/Ahd/2025 [ITO vs. Suresh Prabhulal] A.Ys. 2014-15 to 2017-18 - 3 – In the light of the same, all the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are dismissed. 4. In the result, all four Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are dismissed. This Order pronounced on 13/01/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 13/01/2026 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कȧ Ĥितिलǒप अĒेǒषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƠ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ǒवभागीय Ĥितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad Printed from counselvise.com "