Allowed

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Ms Shakun Advertisingh Pvt. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2018ITA/160/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order rejecting a delayed rectification application in an Income Tax appeal. The Court condoned the delay and restored the matter to the Tribunal for decision on merits, acknowledging a factual error in the Tribunal's recording of evidence.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Tribunal dated 27.12.2017 was set aside, the application for rectification was restored before the Tribunal, and the appeal was disposed of by condoning the delay.

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs Ms Shakun Advertisingh Pvt… — Income Tax | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 160/2018

¶3

Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur Raj.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s. Shakun Advertising Pvt. Ltd., B-3, Giriraj Mansion, 1st Floor, New Colony, Jaipur.

¶7

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Shri Anuroop Singhi For Respondent(s) : Shri Shankar Lal Poddar

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶9

Judgment

¶10

14/11/2018

¶11

This appeal has been preferred against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 27.12.2017 by which misc. application of the appellant filed for rectification of the mistake has been rejected.

¶12

This Court vide order dated on 23.11.2006 dismissed the D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.245/2016 filed by the appellant herein taking note of the submission that the Tribunal has wrongly in para 6 of the judgement recorded the finding that the learned Department Representative has not controverted the findings given by the learned CIT(A). The Court taking note of that part also extracted part of para 4 of the judgement of Tribunal wherein it is mentioned that the learned Department Representative has vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[ITA-160/2018]

¶15

argued that the statement recorded u/s.132(4) has evidentiary value under the Income Tax Act. Number of incriminating documents were found during the course of search, on which this disclosure was made but later on the assessee had retracted partly from the disclosure.

¶16

Shri Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant then filed the application for rectification of mistake, but the Tribunal ignoring the order passed by this Court has rejected the application observing that the application has been filed beyond the period of limitation and was therefore time barred.

¶17

Shri Shankar Lal Poddar, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the order rejecting the application for rectification of mistake is not appeable and the remedy of the appellant was to file writ petition against the aforesaid judgement and not the appeal. He in this behalf has relied on the judgement of Single Bench of this Court in Madhav Marbles & Granites vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal & Anr.-362 ITR 0674 (Raj.).

¶18

Even though it may be true that the appellant should have filed the writ petition, but without going into that technicality and considering the fact that the appellant cannot be left remedyless as according to learned counsel for the appellant concession attributed to Departmental Representative was actually not given by him and, therefore, the learned Tribunal has made a mistake of fact in recording that concession and that in the appeal against the original order, this Court has observed that the remedy of the appellant lies in approaching the Tribunal again for rectification of that mistake, we do not wish to dismiss this matter on that basis

¶19

(3 of 3) [ITA-160/2018]

¶20

but simply dispose of the same by condoning the delay in filing of the application and set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 27.12.2017 and restore the application for rectification of mistake before the Tribunal for deciding the same on merits.

¶21

With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

¶22

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶23

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶24

RS/40

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Ms Shakun Advertisingh Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. Ms Shakun Advertisingh Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu Lal and Ors. Vs Shri Siddharth Mahajan and Ors.

State of Raj and Anr. Vs Suraj Mal Sharma and Ors.

State of Raj Vs Vishwanath Poddar and Ors.

Ram Karan Vs Deepak Upreti and Ors.

Umashankar Gurjar S/O Shri Mannalal Vs the Union of India

Ramesh Chand Saini S/O Sugan Chand Saini Vs Manager, M/S Ashok Leyland Ltd.