Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: cpt :: empanelment :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: VAT Audit :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: form 3cd :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES
 
 
From the Courts »
  Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)

Basisth Kumar Jaiswal & Others Faizabad v. ACIT Faizabad
July, 12th 2012
       IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
             LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
         SHRI B. R. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                          M.A No.64/LKW/2009
                  [Arising out of ITA No. 48/LUC/2005]
                        Assessment Year:1994-95

Basisth Kumar Jaiswal &          v.    ACIT
Others                                 Faizabad
Faizabad
PAN:AFWPJ8184R
(Applicant)                            (Respondent)

                          M.A No.65/LKW/2009
                  [Arising out of ITA No. 49/LUC/2005]
                        Assessment Year:1994-95

Ram Dhani Jaiswal & Others       v.    ACIT
Faizabad                               Faizabad
PAN:AFWPJ6199L
(Applicant)                            (Respondent)

                          M.A No.66/LKW/2009
                  [Arising out of ITA No. 50/LUC/2005]
                        Assessment Year:1994-95

Ram Paltan Jaiswal & Others      v.    ACIT
Faizabad                               Faizabad
PAN:ADLPA0225F
(Applicant)                            (Respondent)

                          M.A No.67/LKW/2009
                  [Arising out of ITA No. 51/LUC/2005]
                        Assessment Year:1994-95

Satish Chandra Pandey &          v.    ACIT
Others                                 Faizabad
Faizabad
PAN:AFWPJ6198M
(Applicant)                            (Respondent)
                                    :-2-:


           Applicant by:     Shri. Abhinav Mehrotra, C.A.
           Respondent by:    Shri. V. V. Singh, D.R.

           Date of hearing:       06.07.2012
           Date of pronouncement: 10.07.2012





                                 ORDER

PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV:

          These Miscellaneous Applications are preferred on behalf of the
assessees against a consolidated order of the Tribunal dated 22.10.2008
with the submission that the Tribunal has adjudicated the issue relying
upon the order of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Govind
Prasad Krishna Kumar v. JCIT (Special), Agra in ITA No. 236/Agr/2006,
whereas the facts considered by the Agra Bench of the Tribunal are quite
different from the facts involved in the cases of the present assessees.
Therefore, a mistake is crept in the order of the Tribunal which calls for
rectification.

2.        The ld. counsel for the assessees further contended that the Agra
Bench of the Tribunal has followed the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya
Pradesh High Court in the case of Awadhesh Pratap Singh Abdul Rehman &
Bros. v. CIT [1994], 210 ITR 406 while adjudicating the issue whereas the
facts of the present assessees' cases are not analogous to the facts of the
case disposed of by the Agra Bench of the Tribunal. Therefore, the order
of the Tribunal may be recalled and a fresh hearing be given to the
assessees in order to bring the correct facts before the Tribunal.

3.        The ld. D.R., on the other hand, has submitted that the order of
the Agra Bench of the Tribunal was placed on behalf of the assessees
during the course of hearing before the Tribunal with the submission that
the impugned issue is covered by the order of the Agra Bench of the
                                     :-3-:

Tribunal and the Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal has followed the order of
the Agra Bench of the Tribunal while adjudicating the appeals and now the
assessees are taking altogether a contrary stand that the facts involved in
the Agra Bench of the Tribunal are different.




4.        Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions
and from a careful perusal of record, we find that the Lucknow Bench of
the Tribunal has adjudicated the issue involved in the assessees' cases
following the order of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal on which reliance has
been placed on behalf of the assessees during the course of hearing.
During the course of hearing before us, nothing was stated on behalf of the
assessees with regard to the factual difference in the assessees ' cases with
the order of the Agra Bench of the Tribunal. The Lucknow Bench of the
Tribunal has adjudicated the issue following the order of the co-ordinate
Bench. Therefore, we do not find any mistake in the order of the Tribunal.
Moreover, the scope of section 254(2) is very limited under which any
mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal can be rectified. Under the
garb of rectification, review of the order is not possible. We, therefore, find
no merit in the Miscellaneous Applications preferred on behalf of the
assessees and dismiss the same.

5.        In the result, all the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the
assessees are dismissed.


      Order pronounced in the open court on 10.7.2012.


        Sd/-                                                 Sd/-
    [B. R. JAIN]                                     [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                      JUDICIAL MEMBER


DATED:10.7.2012
JJ:0607
                     :-4-:



Copy forwarded to:
  1.   Applicant
  2.   Respondent
  3.   CIT(A)
  4.   CIT
  5.   DR
                             Assistant Registrar
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Content Management System development CMS development Content Management Solutions CMS Solutions Content Management Services CMS Services CMS Software

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions