TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with due respect to the order of the jurisdictional high court . This shows that he was aware that the decision of the jurisdictional High court applied to the issue before him Even when the assessee filed a rectification application before him for not following the jurisdictional High Court decision, the Ld.CIT(A) did not distinguish the said decision while dismissing assesses application, but again on the contrary stated that accepting assesses application would tantamount to changing the decision . This again is an implicit acceptance by the Ld.CIT(A) of the mistake in his order passed in quantum proceedings by not following the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court on the issue before him. Having admitted to this mistake in his order, there was no other recourse available in law to the Ld.CIT(A) other than allowing assessee s rectification application. His dismissal of the rectification application on the ground that it would change the CIT(A) s order is in blatant disregard and against all settled principles of law. If a mistake is admitted to have occurred in an order, the same needs to be rectified. There are no two ways about it. Therefore, without g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dismissing assesses application for rectification of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) passed in quantum proceedings holding as under: To, Shri Jitendra S. Patel, 2, Ajubhai Park, Opp. Panetar Party Plot, Thaltej, Ahmedabad - 380059 Sub.: Rectification application dated 25/08/2018 for appellate order dated 11/02/2015 regarding. Please refer to above application received in tapal on 27/09/2018. 2. The contents of application have been carefully persued. It is my opinion that accepting the contention raised therein, shall change the decision taken by my predecessor. Therefore, the mistake claimed can't be rectified u/s 154 of the IT Act 1961 3. The Rectification application dated 25/08/2018 is hereby rejected, Sd/- (Subhash Bains) Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad 4. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that this in itself is sufficient for the order of the ld.CIT(A) to be set aside and rectification application filed by the assessee to be allowed. 5. Thereafter, he took us through the facts of the case, pointing out that the assessee had sold land which was ancestral land acquired by him. For the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based on the report of the government approved valuer Amit B. Rami. The AO noted that in Annexure-A of the report, there was reference to 3 sale instances as comparables out of which first sale instances was at the rate of Rs.299 per square metre whereas other two instances were at the rate of Rs. 15.58 and Rs. 12.58 per square metre only. The AO observed that the area in question in the case of first instance was very small, only 83.61 m2 whereas the area of land under the relevant transaction was 7555 m2 and therefore the rate taken by the valuer was not comparable. The AO has also produced a scanned copy of the valuation report in the assessment order. In view of above facts, AO noted that the fair market value of the agricultural land taken by the appellant as on 01.04.1981 was not correct and accordingly he referred the land for valuation. Valuation Officer, after giving, show cause to the appellant, valued the land at Rs.2,56,870/- as on 01-04- 1981 by taking the rate at Rs. 53.06 per square metres. Accordingly, taking appellant's share as 1/4th, AO calculated the long-term capital gain in the hands of appellant at Rs.10,06,995/- which was added as undisclosed capita ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the present case. (Copy of decision enclosed as Annexure 4) 24. Further decision of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench C in case of ITO vs Nitin Jayantilal Shah ITA No 1988/Ahd/2009 date of order 6/5/2011. Copy of decision is enclosed on Page No 14 to 27 of Paper Book. (Copy of decision enclosed as Annexure 5) However the Honble CIT (A) erred by passing order not following order of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. The CIT (A) has stated in the order as follows: [Page 9 - Para 7.3 of CIT (A) order.... In view of above, with due respect to the order of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, the technical and legal contentions raised by the appellant are hereby rejected. 8. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that in response to this application filed by the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) passed a very cryptic order stating that allowing rectification of the assessee would tantamount to changing decision of the CIT(A), which he was not inclined to do so. The ld.counsel for the assessee stated that it was evident that even the ld.CIT(A) was aware that not following jurisdictional High Court s decision would tantamount to an apparent mistake in his order, and therefore, his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctification application before him for not following the jurisdictional High Court decision, the Ld.CIT(A) did not distinguish the said decision while dismissing assesses application, but again on the contrary stated that accepting assesses application would tantamount to changing the decision . This again is an implicit acceptance by the Ld.CIT(A) of the mistake in his order passed in quantum proceedings by not following the ratio laid down by the jurisdictional High Court on the issue before him. 12. Having admitted to this mistake in his order, there was no other recourse available in law to the Ld.CIT(A) other than allowing assessee s rectification application. His dismissal of the rectification application on the ground that it would change the CIT(A) s order is in blatant disregard and against all settled principles of law. If a mistake is admitted to have occurred in an order, the same needs to be rectified. There are no two ways about it. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, on the basis of the admission of the ld.CIT(A) itself that jurisdictional High Court decision applied in the case of the assessee which he repeatedly implied in his order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
