Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Rajan Dutt, Jammu ( J&K) vs Assessee on 6 May, 2016
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. 106, 108 & 109(Asr)/2014
(Arising out of ITA Nos.420, 422 & 423(Asr)/2012)
Assessment years:2004-05, 2004-05 & 2005-06
PAN: AAOPD4913H
Shri Rajan Datta s/o vs. The Income Tax Officer,
Sh. Gopal Krishan Datta, Ward-2(2), Jammu.
15-Canal Road, Opp. BSF Camp,
Ploura, Jammu J & K )
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by:Sh.Sudershan Kapoor, Advocate
Respondent by: Sh. S.S. Kanwal, DR
Date of hearing: 06/05/2016
Date of pronouncement: 06/05/2016
ORDER
PER A.D. JAIN, JM:
These three Misc. Applications filed by the assessee arise out of the common order of the Tribunal dated 23.04.2014, passed in ITA Nos.420, 422 & 423(Asr)/2012 for the assessment years 2004-05, 2004-05 & 2005-06 respectively.
2. When the case was called on the Board, the ld. counsel for the assessee contended that originally the assessee filed petitions before the ld. CIT, Jammu, under section 264 of the Act, which were dismissed by the ld. CIT, as not maintainable. Thereafter, the assessee filed the 2 M.A. Nos. 106, 108 & 109(Asr)/2014 appeals before the ld. CIT(A), who also dismissed the appeals observing as under:
"In view of the above, it is quite clear that in cases where the petition u/s 263 of the I.T. Act has been rejected by the CIT, Jammu, no remedy lies with the CIT(A) even against the order originally passed by the AO as the assessee has already availed the remedy before the CIT, Jammu u/s 264 of the I.T.Act. Hence, these appeals are not admissible before the CIT(A) for this reason alone and are treated as dismissed being incompetent for the statistical purposes."
3. It was further argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee that being aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed the appeals before the Tribunal and it was argued before the Tribunal that the ld. CIT(A) had erred in dismissing these appeals as being incompetent. It was also pleaded before the Tribunal that even after the dismissal of petition u/s 264 by the ld. CIT, the assessee had the right to file the appeals before the CIT(A). For this, reliance was placed on the case of 'CIT vs. D. Lakshminarayanapathi', 250 ITR 187 ( Madras), where the Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:
"It is open to the law-maker to provide more than one remedy to the aggrieved party and so long as such remedies are available, the aggrieved parties can certainly invoke them."
The Tribunal has rightly held that the assessee, notwithstanding his unsuccessful effort at having the order revised, could still file an appeal as invoking the revisional jurisdiction could not constitute a bar to the filing of an appeal. It is for the Legislature to imposed such a bar if it considers it necessary to do so."
4. The ld. counsel further stated that the submissions of the assessee as well as the judgment relied upon have not been considered in the right 3 M.A. Nos. 106, 108 & 109(Asr)/2014 perspective by the Tribunal, while passing the order. Thus, he pleaded that non-consideration of the arguments submitted by the assessee before the Tribunal as well as non- consideration of the judgment relied upon are the mistakes apparent from the record. Accordingly, he prayed that the consolidated order of the Tribunal, dated 23.04.2014 in the above noted three appeals may be recalled and adjudicated afresh by taking into consideration the submissions of the assessee and the afore- mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. To support his case, the ld. counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs. CIT', 295 ITR 466 (SC).
5. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the Tribunal, dated 23.04.2014 and submitted that there is no error in the order of the Tribunal due to which the order could be recalled.
6. Having heard both the parties in the light of material placed before us and also having gone through the consolidated order of the Tribunal, dated 23.04.2014, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has obviously not taken into account the submissions of the assessee and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, relied upon in the case of 'CIT vs. D. Lakshminarayanapathi' (supra) in right perspective, while passing the order. Therefore, these are the mistakes apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we recall the consolidated order, passed by the Tribunal, 4 M.A. Nos. 106, 108 & 109(Asr)/2014 dated 23.04.2014, to decide the above three appeals of the assessee afresh. The Registry is directed to fix the main appeals for hearing on 30.05.2016. No need to issue notice to the parties, as the date of hearing was pronounced in the open court.
7. In the result, all the three Misc. Applications of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06/05/2016.
Sd/- Sd/-
(T.S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/SKR/
Dated: 06/05/2016
Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Assessee:Sh. Rajan Datta, Jammu
2. The ITO, Ward 2(2), Jammu.
3. The CIT(A), Jammu.
4. The CIT, Jammu.
5. The SR DR, ITAT, Amritsar.
True copy
By order
(Assistant Registrar)
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Amritsar Bench: Amritsar.