Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Utsav Cold Storage P Ltd., Jodhpur vs Ito, Jaipur on 11 June, 2018
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@MA No.122/JP/2016
(Arising out of ITA No. 428/JP/2013)
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10
M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., cuke The Income Tax Officer,
D-155, Durga Marg, Vs. Ward 3(2),
Bani Park, Jaipur Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACU 9306 N
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
s Assessee by : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri J.C.Kulhari (JCIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 04/05/2018
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 11/06/2018
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This miscellaneous application has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 428/JP/2013 dated 27.05.2016 for AY 2009-10.
2. In its application, the assessee has submitted that in the aforesaid decision passed by the Coordinate Bench, it has noticed certain apparent, glaring and patent errors of law, resulting in altogether a contrary decision which decision, if these mistakes did not occur, would not have been the same:
2 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur 1st Mistake: At bottom of page 10 of the order from the last line entering to page No. 11, following erroneous position of law was recorded and considered.
"Section 49(1)(iii)(e) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.4.1999. The said decision, in our view, is only clarificatory in nature and has specifically provided the cost of acquisition in case of succession of firm to the company."
The above quoted position of law by the Coordinate Bench is altogether contrary to the actual existing statutory position of law. As a matter of fact, Section 49(1)(iii)(e) was in existence since the date when Income Tax Act itself came into existence in 1962. This clause had been a constant subject matter of amendments from time to time by way of various insertions therein.
Therefore, a wrong and erroneous fact relating to existence of law, including the amendment vide Finance Act 2012, w.e.f. 01-04-1999 was considered, leading the Coordinate Bench to arrive at a wrong conclusion in rendering the decision. Clause (xiii) of Section 47 was only inserted along with clause (xiiib) thereof in clause (e) of Section 49(1) (iii) vide Finance Act 2012, with retrospective effect from 01- 04-1999.
Also therefore, the Coordinate Bench committed a patent and obvious error in rendering the decision. Had the insertion in law vis-a-vis appellant's submissions, been understood in consonance with existing statutory position of the previous year relating to asst. yr. 2009-10, i.e. prior to insertion of clause (xiii) of Section 47, in clause
(e) of Sec. 49, vide Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from 01-04-1999 and thereafter, then the conclusion and decision would 3 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur have been not the same but a correct decision would have been rendered by the Bench. There would have been also no occasion to base the decision on "Clause (iii)(a) which deals with the transfer under or by way of succession, inheritance or devolution, in a general way only as per the Hindu Law of Succession, inheritance or devolution and not the specific transfer under clause (xiii) of section 47 specifically included in clause (e) of section 49(1) (iii). The clause
(e) covers varied nature of transfers specified in section 47, which are though transfers in normal parlance, but for the purposes of section 45 are not to be treated as transfer. Hence, the adopting of cost of acquisition of the previous owner of the property was not in force till the clause (xiii) of section 47 was inserted in section 49(iii) (e) though with retrospective effect vide F. A. 2012. Hence, a patent and glaring mistake of law took place.
2nd mistake: The undisputed and unchallenged finding given by the ld. CIT(A), i.e. which was neither disputed by the appellant nor by the revenue by filing appeal or cross-objection was erroneously disturbed by the Hon'ble Bench by holding that the appellant's case was covered by section 49(1)(iii)(a) i.e. by succession, inheritance or devolution. This has resulted in an apparent, patent, glaring and obvious mistake of law as the undisputed finding of the Id. CIT(A), made disputed one by the Coordinate Bench which put the appellant in an adverse and in detrimental position than it was prior to coming before the Coordinate Bench on an altogether different issue. We reproduce hereunder the observation and finding at Pg. 10 of the order of ld. CIT(A):
4 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur The ld. CIT(A) after dealing with his co-terminus powers as that of the AO by quoting the Allahabad Bench decision gave his finding as under:-
"In view of the above observation of the Hon'ble ITAT Allahabad Bench it is held that the cost of the property for determining the capital gains in the hands of the appellant is to be worked out as per section 49(1)(iii)(e)."
Hence, the Coordinate Bench committed an apparent and patent error of law.
3rd Mistake: Ground No. 3 of appeal was relating to denying of any liability of interest in its totality. While deciding this ground, the Coordinate Bench has again committed a patent error of law in understanding the ground as that of a general nature of ground against levy of interest which is generally aimed for disputing consequential levy of interest when addition etc. is sustained.
As a matter of fact, the appellant had absolutely, through this ground no. 3 denied its liability for charge of any interest, because no advance tax payment liability was in existence during the previous year relevant to the assessment year, as well as also the same was neither in existence on the date when the return of income was filed or the assessment was made. Because clause (xiii) of section 47 was not in existence in section 49(1) (iii) (e) of the Act during the previous year relevant to the asst. Yr. 2009-10. Any subsequent change cannot be foreseen or anticipated while performing an act in present therefore appellant had taken the ground denying its total liability for charge of interest u/s 234B etc., even if alternatively addition is sustained. In 5 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur support of this submission, various decisions were relied upon and were cited as were available in brief summary of arguments advanced. All these had escaped the attention of the Bench, resulting in a patent error of fact and law, required to be rectified u/s 254(2) of the Act by recalling the order.
4th Mistake: It was specifically submitted before the Hon'ble ITAT that the provisions contained u/s 49(1)(iii)(e) is a special provision as against Sec.49(1)(a) which is a merely general provision of law and the law is well settled that Special Law always takes preference over the General Law. On this aspect, it was submitted before the Id. CIT(A) (page 5 para c) that "....... Further it can also be said that he failed in appreciating the maxim law "Principle of Interpretation of Statutory Provision that special provision overtakes the general provision". The clause (e) of section 49(1)(iii) was a special provision overriding the clause (a) of section 49(1)(iii), which was only referring to the 'succession, inheritance or devolution' in terms of personal laws of inheritance..........."
From the subjected ITAT order, it is evidently clear that the Hon'ble ITAT did not at all deal with the above contention.
5th Mistake: It was further submitted [Kindly refer order of CIT(A) at page 6 para (e)] that "........Validity of action taken, or conclusion arrived at has to be judged in the light of reason/material/evidence available at the time of taking the action. Any subsequent reason/material/evidence 6 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur cannot be used in furtherance of action or in its support."(Reliance - (1) AIR 1978 (SC) 851 - Mohindersing Gill vs. Chief Election Comm. (2) (1981) 131 ITR 429 (Ker) Ramraj (M.S vs. Comm of Agr. IT); (3) (1980) 126 ITR 270 (Mad)- Asa John Devinathan vs. Addl. CIT and (4) (1988) 174 ITR 714 (Cal) - Equitable Investment Co. (P) Ltd. vs. ITO.
Appellant accordingly prays that its specific ground no. 1 to 5 may kindly be allowed in view of the submissions made above."
However, it appears that the above submissions also escaped the kind attention of the Hon'ble ITAT and has not been dealt with.
All the above mistakes are apparent, glaring and patent and hence, require a suitable rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act. Since these mistake go to the root of the matter and hence, it is prayed that the entire order may kindly be recalled and the appeal may kindly be heard afresh in the light of the position of the law in existence as on the date when the return of income filed and assessment was made.
3. The ld DR objected to the misc. application and submitted that the decision of the Coordinate Bench is a well-reasoned order taking into consideration relevant facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable, hence, the subject misc. application should be rejected. It was further submitted that what the ld AR has submitted will lead to a review of the decision taken by the Coordinate Bench and the same is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. It was submitted that where the decision of the Coordinate Bench is not acceptable to the assessee, the law has provided for an appropriate remedy by way of further appeal before the Hon'ble High Court.
7 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur
4. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record.
5. Firstly, we refer to grounds of appeal which were the subject matter of adjudication before the Coordinate Bench and the same reads as under:-
"1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settled legal position the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the amendment in section 49(iii)(e) inserting clause (xiii) of section 47 was of clarificatory nature. That such holding resulted in a wrong finding in law and consequently upholding the action of AO in assessing the income of the appellant at Rs. 1,57,88,459/- is erroneous and wrong in the eye of law, which deserves to be cancelled.
2. The impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law on the issue of converting the Short Term Capital Loss into Long Term Capital Gain and taxing the same because the settled position of law is that the validity of an order of a statutory functionary has to be judged on the basis of material available and legal position prevailing at the time when such an action was taken or an order is framed because subsequent happenings if are put into use and considered, it may validate an order which was otherwise an illegal order in law when was made. This is impermissible in the eye of law. Hence the action of ld. AO was erroneous and which was liable to be cancelled, by deleting the addition by the ld. CIT(A), which was not done. Hence she erred. The addition may kindly be deleted.
3. That without prejudice to the ground no. 1 and 2 above, the ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in law and in facts in upholding levy of interest u/s 8 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur 234B of the Act ignoring the submissions and legal position particularly when the amendment in statute was a retrospective charging amendment and the assessee has been denying completely its liability for such a charge of interest even if action of converting the Short Term Capital Loss into Long Term Capital Gain is upheld."
6. If we look at the order of the ld CIT(A), we find that the above two grounds of appeal have been raised in the context of following findings of the ld. CIT(A) which has been taken note of by the Coordinate Bench at para 3 of its order and which reads as under:-
"Given the fact that the law was clarified and this clarification was made with retrospective effect from 01.04.1999 by the Finance Act, 2012, these provisions are clearly applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant because this amendment with retrospective effect was clarificatory and not substantive in nature.
The AR of the appellant has submitted that the cost could not have been determined u/s 49(1)(iii)(a) which has been done by the AO but should have been done u/s 49(1)(iii)(e). First of all, it is a presumption that the cost worked out by the AO is u/s 49(1)(iii)(a) and not u/s 49(1)(iii)(e) because the assessment order is completely silent regarding the section under which the cost of the property has been worked out. Therefore, the AR of the appellant is making a presumption that the cost of the property has been worked out u/s 49(1)(iii)(a).
In view of the above observation of the Hon'ble ITAT Allahabad Bench, it is held that the cost of the property for determining the capital gains in the hands of the appellant is to be worked out as per section 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act."9 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016
M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur
7. In the context of the above two grounds of appeal and the findings of the ld CIT(A), the Coordinate Bench has then recorded the contentions of the ld. AR in its order which are reproduced as under:-
"4.1 ........It was submitted before us that section 49(iii)(e) was introduced with effect from 1.4.1999 by the Finance Act, 2012 and, therefore, the ld. CIT (A) was long(wrong) in applying the provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(e) to the case in hand as the law was amended with effect from 1.4.1999. The ld. Counsel has also taken us to the explanation to the amended provision to show that the amendment will take retrospective effect from 01.04.1999 and accordingly apply in relation to the A.Y. 1999-2000 and subsequent assessment years. It was submitted that section 49(1)(iii)(e) is a charging provision and being a charging provision, the same cannot be retrospectively apply to the transaction which has taken place in the assessment year 2009-10. It was submitted that addition/levy on the basis of retrospective amendment is not permissible in view of various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly, CIT vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd., 109 Taxman 342 and Sedco Forex International Drill vs.CIT, 279 ITR 310 (SC)."
8. Further contentions of the ld. AR which are taken note of by the Coordinate Bench are contained at para 4.3 of its order which are reproduced as under:-
"4.3. It was thereafter contended by the ld. A/R for the assessee that the specific provisions of section 47(xiii) which prevail over the general provisions i.e. section 49(1)(iii)(a) of the Act and on the basis of the above said submission, it was submitted that the AO was wrong in applying the provisions of sec. 49(1)(iii)(a) to determine the cost of 10 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur acquisition. It was further submitted that even the ld. CIT (A) was wrong in applying the provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(e) as the said provision was not in existence at the time of transaction or during the assessment proceedings as the said provision was inserted by the Finance Act,2012. On the basis of the above said contention, the ld. A/R has submitted that the addition made by the authorities below on the basis of transfer of land was wrong. In fact, the assessee has suffered short term capital loss on account of sale of the assets and there is no short term capital gain to the assessee. In the alternative, it was submitted that provisions of section 234B & 234C should not be applied for payment of interest on the basis of retrospective amendment on account of non-payment of advance tax."
9. Thereafter, the Coordinate Bench has recorded its finding at para 4.5 and 5 of its order which are reproduced as under:-
"4.5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Before we deal with the factual aspects of the matter, it is necessary to reproduce section 47(xiii) and 49 for the purpose of clarity and reference.
Section 47 : Transactions not regarded as transfer Nothing contained in section 45 shall apply to the following transfers :-
(xiii) any transfer of a capita asset or intangible asset by a firm to a company as a result of succession of the firm by a company in the business carried on by the firm, or any transfer or a capital asset to a company in the course of demutualization or corporatization of a recognized stock 11 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur exchange in India as a result of which an association of persons or body of individuals is succeeded by such company :
Provided that -
(a) All the assets and liabilities of the firm or of the association of persons or body of individuals relating to the business immediately before the succession become the assets and liabilities of the company;
(b) All the partners of the firm immediately before the succession become the shareholders of the company in the same proportion in which their capital accounts stood in the books of the firm on the date of the succession;
(c) The partners of the firm do not receive any consideration or benefit, directly or indirectly, in any form or manner, other than by way of allotment of shares in the company; and
(d) The aggregate of the shareholding in the company of the partners of the firm is not less than fifty per cent of the total voting power in the company and their shareholding continues to be as such for a period of five years from the date of the succession;
(e) The demutualization or corporatization of a recognized stock exchange in India is carried out in accordance with a scheme for demutualization or corporatization 12 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur which is approved by the Securities and Exchange Board of India established under section 3 of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 (15 to 1992).
Section 49 : Cost with reference to certain modes of acquisition.
(1) Where the capital asset became the property of the assessee-
(i) On any distribution of assets on the total or partial partition of a Hindu undivided family;
(ii) Under a gift or will; (iii) (a) by succession, inheritance or devolution, or
(b) on any distribution of assets on the dissolution of a firm, body of individuals, or other association of persons, where such dissolution had taken place at any time before the 1st day of April, 1987, or
(c) on any distribution of assets on the liquidation of a company, or
(d) under a transfer to a revocable or an irrevocable trust, or
(e) under any such transfer as is referred to in clause (via) or clause (v) or clause (vi) or clause (via) or clause (viaa) or clause (vica) or clause (vicb) or clause xiiib) of section 47;
(iv) such assessee being a Hindu undivided family, by the mode referred to in sub-section (2) of section 64 at any time after the 31st day of December, 1969, 13 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur The cost of acquisition of the asset shall be deemed to be the cost for which the previous owner of the property acquired it, as increased by the cost of any improvement of the assets incurred or borne by the previous owner or the assessee, as the case may be."
From the bare reading of both the provisions i.e. section 47 and section 49 of the Act, it is clear that section 47 deals with the transaction not regarded as transfer whereas section 49 deals with the cost with reference to certain mode of acquisition. Both the sections, in our understanding, operate and work in different forum and there is no over-lapping of the section. Under section 47(xiii), if a firm by way of succession became the company, then the transaction i.e. migration of the firm to the company would not be treated as transfer. However, this section do not provide the calculation of cost of acquisition by way of succession from firm to the company. Section 49, specifically provides the manner in which the cost of acquisition through various conditions is required to be calculated. If we look into section 49(1)(iii), it is specifically provide transfer by way of succession, inheritance/devaluation. The firm is succeeded by the company, therefore, the cost of acquisition of the company would be as that of acquisition of the firm. The valuation of land and assets of firm though valued by the valuer will not change or alter the cost of acquisition of the firm despite valuation of assets of the firm and would remain the same, and therefore the cost of acquisition of the company would be cost of acquisition of the firm. The firm is being succeeded by the company and the company is not buying or purchasing the assets of the firm. The element of sale and purchase of the assets of the firm were not involved in the case of succession of the firm to the company. In 14 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur view thereof, we decide the issue against the assessee and held that the cost of acquisition of the company (assessee) would be the cost of acquisition of the firm (M/s. Sarju Cold Storage). Therefore, the assessee would only be entitled to the indexation on the cost of acquisition of the firm on the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The argument of the assessee that the AO has wrongly calculated the cost of acquisition of the assessee u/s 49(1)(iii)(a), in our view, is not correct as both the AO and ld. CIT (A) have applied the cost of acquisition on the basis of principles stated herein above i.e. cost of acquisition of the firm. The assessee, in our view, has wrongly got confused with the principles laid down under section 47 which talks about the transaction which are not regarded as transfer, with that of principles for determining of cost of acquisition under section 49. Section 49(1)(iii)(e) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.4.1999. The said section, in our view, is only clarificatory in nature and has specifically provided the cost of acquisition in case of succession of firm to the company. However, the said cost of acquisition was already in existence under section 49(1)(iii)(a) of the IT Act. Therefore, in our view no fresh charge has been created on account of succession of a firm to the company. It has only clarified the existing basis of calculating the cost of acquisition in case of succession of the firm to the company. Therefore, the argument of ld. A/R for the assessee is devoid of any merit and is also dismissed.
5. Ground no. 3 relates to levy of interest under section 234B. Since we have dismissed the ground of the assessee relating to cost of acquisition on the basis of principles stated herein above i.e. cost of acquisition of the firm, therefore, levy of interest u/s 234B is rightly 15 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur confirmed by the ld. CIT (A). We find no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT (A). The same is hereby upheld."
10. The Coordinate Bench has referred to the provisions of section 47(xiii) and section 49 of the Act and has held that both the sections operate and work in different forum and there is no over-lapping of the section. It held that section 47(xiii) provides that the succession or migration of a firm to a company is not treated as transfer and the said section doesn't provide for cost of acquisition in the hands of the company where a firm is succeeded by a company. The said findings of the Coordinate Bench thus takes into account the general position of law regarding specific nature of transfer where a firm is succeeded by a company and not regarded as transfer for the purposes of chargeability of capital gains tax and also the general position of law governing the cost of acquisition in such situations as so defined in section 49 of the Act.
11. In the instant case, in respect of cost of acquisition in the hands of the company, the Coordinate Bench further has held that section 49(1)(iii) specifically provides for such transfer by way of succession, inheritance/devaluation. It was held by the Coordinate Bench that where the firm is succeeded by a company, the cost of acquisition of the company would be as that of acquisition of the firm. It was further held by the Coordinate Bench that the argument of the assessee that the AO has wrongly calculated the cost of acquisition of the assessee u/s 49(1)(iii)(a), in our view, is not correct as both the AO and ld. CIT (A) have applied the cost of acquisition on the basis of principles stated herein above i.e. cost of acquisition of the firm. The Coordinate Bench has further held that "the assessee, in our view, has wrongly got 16 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur confused with the principles laid down under section 47 which talks about the transaction which are not regarded as transfer, with that of principles for determining of cost of acquisition under section 49. Section 49(1)(iii)(e) was introduced by the Finance Act, 2012 with effect from 1.4.1999. The said section, in our view, is only clarificatory in nature and has specifically provided the cost of acquisition in case of succession of firm to the company. However, the said cost of acquisition was already in existence under section 49(1)(iii)(a) of the IT Act. Therefore, in our view no fresh charge has been created on account of succession of a firm to the company. It has only clarified the existing basis of calculating the cost of acquisition in case of succession of the firm to the company."
12. We find that the above findings of the Coordinate Bench have been rendered in the context of the provisions of section 49(1)(iii)(a) and not section 49(1)(iii)(e) as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 where clause (xiii) of section 47 was inserted w.r.e.f 1.4.1999. Further, the contentions of the assessee have also been understood in context of transfer as per clause (xiii) of section 47 as evident from the finding that "the assessee, in our view, has wrongly got confused with the principles laid down under section 47 which talks about the transaction which are not regarded as transfer, with that of principles for determining of cost of acquisition under section 49" instead of corresponding clause relating to cost of acquisition relating to transfer as contemplated under section 47(xiii) as introduced in section 49(1)(iii)(e) of the Act. However, if we look at the first two grounds of appeal, these grounds of appeal were raised by the assessee specifically in the context of section 49(1)(iii)(e) as amended by the Finance Act, 2012 which were brought on the statute subsequent to passing of the 17 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016 M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act and which were invoked by the ld CIT(A). In these grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the findings of the ld CIT(A) in holding that amendment to section 49(1)(iii)(e) inserting clause (xiii) of section 47 was clarificatory in nature. The said findings of the ld CIT(A), as we have noted above, were rendered in the context of amendment being retrospective and hence clarificatory in nature. However, the way the same has been apparently understood by the Coordinate Bench was that the provisions governing cost of acquisition in case of succession, inheritance are already in existence under section 49(1)(iii)(a), the subsequent amendment in section 49(1)(iii)(e), wherein corresponding provisions governing cost of acquisition in case of a transfer as defined in section 47(xiii) were provided by the Finance Act, 2012, was clarificatory in nature.
13. We further note that contentions of the assessee regarding non- levy of interest u/s 234B due to retrospective amendment, though noted by the Coordinate Bench, has apparently missed its attention and the ground of appeal has been dismissed holding it as consequential in nature in view of deletion of ground relating to cost of acquisition.
14. In light of above discussions, we consider it appropriate that the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench be recalled in its entirety and the matter be heard afresh. We accordingly recall the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 428/JP/2013. The Registry is directed to fix the matter for hearing in due course.
The misc. application so filed before us is hereby disposed off in light of above directions.
18 M.A. No. 122/JP/2016M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur Vs. ITO, Jaipur Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/06/2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼fot; ikWy jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½
(Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 11/06/2018.
*Ganesh Kr
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s Utsav Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 3(2), Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur.
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { M.A. No. 122/JP/2016} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar