ITAT allowed assessee's miscellaneous application for rectification

Following the Tribunal's order dismissing, assessee and Revenue filed miscellaneous applications pointing out various alleged mistakes apparent from the record. ITAT dismissed Revenue's applications as they were filed after 5 years and the proper remedy was to challenge the order by writ in High Court. It allowed the assessee's application and rectified the error.-501174

1. The AO refused to allow to the assessee the deduction claimed u/s 10B.

2. The Ld. CIT(A)partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

3. The Tribunal, vide order dated 31.08.2009 dismissed the assessee's appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 2.1 The assessee filed M.A. No.98(Asr)/2009 before the Tribunal, pointing out various alleged mistakes apparent from the record in the aforesaid Tribunal order dated 31.08.2009.

4. The Revenue filed five Miscellaneous Applications which were allowed and it again filed against five Miscellaneous Applications against the common order dated 05.03.2015 passed by the Tribunal, which had caused immense prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. One Miscellaneous Application was field by the assessee, against the orders of the Tribunal.

5. The ITAT held as under:

"6. Having heard the rival contentions in the light of the material placed on record, we find that the Department has not placed anything on record to show that the Tribunal order dated 04.03.2010, whereby its earlier order dated 31.08.2009 was recalled, has been challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble High Court by way of appeal/writ petition. Obviously, the remedy, if any available with the Department against the aforesaid Tribunal order dated 04.03.2010, was by way of appeal/writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, as per advice. Almost a period of five years has expired since the passing of the said order of the Tribunal, this obviously shows that the Department sits satisfied with the Tribunal order dated 04.03.2010. For this very reason, the applications now filed by the Department do not carry any merit.

7. All these grievances of the assessee are found to be correct. ITA No.345(Asr)/2009 was an appeal against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The other four appeals, on the other hand, were quantum appeals for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. As such, there has crept in an inadvertent error in our order dated 05.03.215, wherein, in para no.92, it has been observed that "As stated in the beginning of this order, the facts in all the five appeals are, mutatis mutandis, similar. Therefore, our observations will equally apply to the other appeals also".”

Case Reference - Income Tax Officer, vs. Shri Rohit Tandon Prop.

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR.

BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M.A. Nos. 23 to 27(Asr)2015

(Arising out of ITA Nos.345, 55, 410,238 & 284(Asr)/2015, 11, 10, 11 & 12)

(Assessment Years:2006-07 to 2009-10)

Similar Ripples

Questions

There is no question

ITAT allowed assessee's miscellaneous application for rectification

Write your Comment

Would you like to edit this news ? Edit

Select Format

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Advanced

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

Add tags

You get opportunity to take 30 day Challenge program.

Optional

PUBLISH IT

Don't sell
PUBLISH IT
Publish privately
SAVE AS DRAFT

Dont't publish now

1. The AO refused to allow to the assessee the deduction claimed u/s 10B. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. The Tribunal, vide order dated 31.08.2009 dismissed the assessee's appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 2.1 The assessee filed M.A. No.98(Asr)/2009 before the Tribunal, pointing out various alleged mistakes apparent from the record in the aforesaid Tribunal order dated 31.08.2009.4. The Revenue filed five Miscellaneous Applications which were allowed and it again filed against five Miscellaneous Applications against the common order dated 05.03.2015 passed by the Tribunal, which had caused immense prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. One Miscellaneous Application was field by the assessee, against the orders of the Tribunal.5. The ITAT held as under:"6. Having heard the rival contentions in the light of the material placed on record, we find that the Department has not placed anything on record to show that the Tribunal order dated 04.03.2010, whereby its earlier order dated 31.08.2009 was recalled, has been challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble High Court by way of appeal/writ petition. Obviously, the remedy, if any available with the Department against the aforesaid Tribunal order dated 04.03.2010, was by way of appeal/writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, as per advice. Almost a period of five years has expired since the passing of the said order of the Tribunal, this obviously shows that the Department sits satisfied with the Tribunal order dated 04.03.2010. For this very reason, the applications now filed by the Department do not carry any merit.7. All these grievances of the assessee are found to be correct. ITA No.345(Asr)/2009 was an appeal against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The other four appeals, on the other hand, were quantum appeals for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. As such, there has crept in an inadvertent error in our order dated 05.03.215, wherein, in para no.92, it has been observed that "As stated in the beginning of this order, the facts in all the five appeals are, mutatis mutandis, similar. Therefore, our observations will equally apply to the other appeals also".”Case Reference - Income Tax Officer, vs. Shri Rohit Tandon Prop.IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR.BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERM.A. Nos. 23 to 27(Asr)2015(Arising out of ITA Nos.345, 55, 410,238 &amp; 284(Asr)/2015, 11, 10, 11 &amp; 12)(Assessment Years:2006-07 to 2009-10)

1. The AO refused to allow to the assessee the deduction claimed u/s 10B. 2. The Ld. CIT(A)partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 3. The Tribunal, vide order dated 31.08.2009 dismissed the assessee's appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 2.1 The assessee filed M.A. No.98(Asr)/2009 before the Tribunal, pointing out various alleged mistakes apparent from the record in the aforesaid Tribunal order dated 31.08.2009.4. The Revenue filed five Miscellaneous Applications which were allowed and it again filed against five Miscellaneous Applications against the common order dated 05.03.2015 passed by the Tribunal, which had caused immense prejudice to the interests of the Revenue. One Miscellaneous Application was field by the assessee, against the orders of the Tribunal.5. The ITAT held as under:"6. Having heard the rival contentions in the light of the material placed on record, we find that the Department has not placed anything on record to show that the Tribunal order dated 04.03.2010, whereby its earlier order dated 31.08.2009 was recalled, has been challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble High Court by way of appeal/writ petition. Obviously, the remedy, if any available with the Department against the aforesaid Tribunal order dated 04.03.2010, was by way of appeal/writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court, as per advice. Almost a period of five years has expired since the passing of the said order of the Tribunal, this obviously shows that the Department sits satisfied with the Tribunal order dated 04.03.2010. For this very reason, the applications now filed by the Department do not carry any merit.7. All these grievances of the assessee are found to be correct. ITA No.345(Asr)/2009 was an appeal against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the penalty imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The other four appeals, on the other hand, were quantum appeals for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. As such, there has crept in an inadvertent error in our order dated 05.03.215, wherein, in para no.92, it has been observed that "As stated in the beginning of this order, the facts in all the five appeals are, mutatis mutandis, similar. Therefore, our observations will equally apply to the other appeals also".”Case Reference - Income Tax Officer, vs. Shri Rohit Tandon Prop.IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR.BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERM.A. Nos. 23 to 27(Asr)2015(Arising out of ITA Nos.345, 55, 410,238 & 284(Asr)/2015, 11, 10, 11 & 12)(Assessment Years:2006-07 to 2009-10)

Hi Thakurani,
I want to withdraw in my Thakurani wallet
Thanks,

Select the reason for validity check

I feel great..the news is still good.please give the reason too..thanks..

Why do you think the News as invalid?” Please mention the reason.

I appreciate your effort. May I request you to select one of the reasons from below.
I am marking this post and your reason to Thakurani Moderators. They will take appropriate action.
Thanks,

Write your reason

My Dear ,

Harassing

Spam

Ingenuine

Rotten

Alien

Plagiarism

Unformatted

ITAT allowed assessee's miscellaneous application for rectification