TMI Blog2020 (11) TMI 979X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s was also not decided. Considering material available on records we deem it proper that both issues require the decision as have not been addressed in the orders, sought to be rectified, which is a mistake apparent from records - MA Nos. 67 to 73/Ind/2019 (Arising out of IT(SS)A No.30 to 36/Ind/2016) - - - Dated:- 26-11-2020 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Girish Agrawal, Miss Nisha Lahoti, Ars. For the Revenue : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR. ORDER Per Kul Bharat, J.M: These Misc. Applications by Assessee seeking for recalling of the order of the Tribunal dated 30.04.2019 passed in IT(SS)A Nos.30 to 36/Ind/2016 pertaining to assessment years 2001-02 to 2007-08. 2. The contention of the assessee in the Misc. Application and the submissions made by the assessee are reproduced as under; Assessee submits that following submission may please be considered as a summary for all the seven miscellaneous applications filed for AY 2001-02 to 2007-08. A. Common to all seven years i.e. A.Y. 2001-02 to 2007-08 1. Computation of agricultural income earned from leasehold agri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code, 1959 in favour of lessee. There are also departmental instructions that patwaris will not enter name of lease holder in column 4 of Khasra 2 Lease agreements Ld. AO: Lease deeds are on plain paper with no stamp on them and it appears that they have been signed in one hand writing. Ld. CIT(A): Lease deeds are on plain paper filed as additional evidence cannot be accepted as good evidence to prove the claim of agricultural income earned from lease hold land Both Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A) have given factually incorrect finding. Lease agreements are on stamp paper dated to respective years. Copies also furnished before Hon ble Bench. [PB 51 to 57] There is no finding given on these factual and verifiable records which the authorities below have wrongly stated to arrive at an adverse view. 3 Furnishing of proof of agricultural activities being carried out on or any proof of sale of yield Ld. AO: Assessee failed to furnish any proof to establish that agricultural income is earned. Ld. CIT(A): No such finding No s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S T Developers. Assessee i.e. Mohd. Atique is not a party to this deed and hence the document neither belongs to nor pertains to him d. No reference has been made in the impugned order on the above mentioned points relating to calling of report by Hon ble Bench, report submitted by Ld. AO and the submissions made by assessee. B. Relating to A.Y. 2002-03 to 2007-08 1. Reference to para in the impugned order on the basis of which finding has been given for disposal of appeals A.Y. 2002-03 to 2007-08 While disposing appeal the above mentioned six appeals, reference has been made to para 14 of the impugned order. In para 14 of the impugned order additional grounds of appeal raised by assessee are rejected. Considering the above facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made and documents on record, it is submitted that the aforesaid mistakes are the mistakes apparent from record which goes to the root of matter and therefore in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience, the said errors be rectified and consequential effect be given. In the alternate, the impugned order may please be recalled and hearing be fixed. At the cost of repe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf. 13. Apart from this, the matter relates to the Assessment Year 2000-01. Earlier the matter was remanded by the Tribunal vide Annexure A-4 on 3.6.2008 and a sufficient period has elapsed in the proceedings and at his juncture if the mater is remanded to decide the aforesaid legal issue, then it will be the another round of litigation. To save time, money and energy, it would be appropriate if the Tribunal is directed to decide on the aforesaid legal issue. [emphasis supplied] 6. In the above referred decision, Hon ble Jurisdictional ITAT Indore Bench in the case of Nandlal Sachdeva [2011] 18 ITJ 846 held Para 10 The issue with regard to legality of proceedings undertaken u/s 154 after issue of notice u/s 143(2) is a purely legal issue can be raised at any stage . This issue was not raised by the assessee in the first round of appeal either before the CIT(A) or before the Tribunal. [emphasis supplied] The stage referred in the finding given is any stage . The additional ground of legal nature were admitted by the Hon ble ITAT Indore Bench which were then remanded to CIT(A) for adjudication. Thus, admission of additional ground of legal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Madhya Pradesh 2. Date of Order 10.03.2006 28.03.2006 06.03.2012 3. Quorum of Hon ble Judges a) JJ. Shri A.M. Sapre b) JJ. Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari a) JJ. Shri S.K. Kulshrestha b) JJ. Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari a) JJ. Shri Krishna Kumar Lahoti b) JJ. Smt. Vimla Jain 4. Author JJ. Shri A.M. Sapre c) JJ. Shri S.K. Kulshrestha 5. Appellant Department (DCIT) Department (CIT) Assessee 6. Substantial Question of law Additional substantial question of law framed by the Hon ble Court. Other issues raised by the appellant not examined. Raised by the Department Raised by the Assessee 7. Issue addressed in the decision Additional groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned members seem to have missed the point that the review was undertaken by larger Bench. The legal position on the point is made luculent by the Supreme Court in the case of Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik [2002] 254 ITR 99 in following terms :- Judicial discipline and propriety demands that a Bench of two judges of the Supreme Court should follow a decision of a Bench of three judges. If the Bench of two judges concludes that an earlier judgment of a Bench of three judges is so very incorrect that in no circumstances can it be followed, the proper course for the Bench of two judges to adopt is to refer the matter before it to a Bench of three judges, setting out the reasons why it could not agree with the earlier judgment. If, then, the Bench of three judges also comes to the conclusion that the earlier judgment of a Bench of three judges is incorrect, reference to a Bench of five judges is justified. (p.99) Considering the above facts, circumstances of the case, submissions made, documents on record and judicial precedence, miscellaneous applications of the assessee be allowed. 3. Per contra Ld. DR opposed these submissions and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
