Pooranmal D. Choudhary , vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 4389/Mum/2012)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An application under section 254(2) cannot lie against a Tribunal direction merely because the assessee apprehends that the direction, when carried out by the Assessing Officer, may result in an enhancement of income; such an apprehension does not render the order erroneous apparent from the record so as to be rectifiable under section 254(2). A direction that the Assessing Officer verify the articles of association regarding transferability of shares and verify the basis of valuation of shares on the date of sale, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard, is in line with the facts of the case and in accordance with the provisions of law, and therefore is not erroneous warranting rectification.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ी एच. एल. कावा , अ य एवं ी एन. के. बलै या, लेखा सद य के सम । BEFORE SHRI H. L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, A.M.
व वध आवेदन सं./M.A. No. 400/Mum/2014 (Arising out of ITA No. 4389/Mum/2012) ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Shri Pooranmal D. Choudhary, The ACIT-15(2), 201, Arihant Apartment, बनाम/ Mumbai-400 007 Dr. Bhaadkamkar Marg, Vs. Mumbai Central, Mumbai-400 008 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. AAGPP 0357 F (Applicant) : (Respondent)
Applicant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Respondent by : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla
ु वाई क( तार*ख / सन : 13.02.2015 Date of Hearing घोषणा क( तार*ख / : 13.02.2015 Date of Pronouncement
आदे श / O R D E R Per N. K. Billaiya, AM:
This miscellaneous application by the assessee is directed against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 4389/Mum/2012 for A.Y. 2008-09.
2. It is the claim of the assessee that while disposing of the appeal, the directions given by the Tribunal are erroneous and need to be rectified. As the directions, if followed by the A.O. would amount to enhancement of income which is beyond the power of the Tribunal.
3. Before us, the counsel for the assessee strongly submitted that the Tribunal has erred in giving directions which are not supported by any provision of the Act.
2 MA No. 400/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) Shri Pooranmal D. Choudhary vs. ACIT
4. We have carefully perused the order of the Tribunal and have given the thoughtful consideration to the contents of the miscellaneous application.
5. Before proceeding further, let us first see the directions of the Tribunal, which is as under:
'7. ................... The A.O. is directed to verify the articles of association whether the articles of the company M/s. Kora Construction Pvt. Ltd. allow free transferability on shares. The A.O. is also directed to verify the basis of valuation of shares on the date of sale as provided by the assessee after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.'
It would not be out of place to mention that during the course of the assessment proceedings itself the A.O. had asked the assessee to submit/furnish the basis of the valuation for the price of the shares of the company. The Tribunal has only directed the A.O. to verify the basis of the valuation of shares on the date of sale as provided by the assessee. It appears that the assessee has a strong apprehension that if the basis of the valuation is verified, there will be an enhancement of income.
6. We fail to understand how an apprehension of the assessee would make the order of the Tribunal erroneous and rectifiable u/s. 254(2) of the Act. In our considered opinion, the directions by the Tribunal are in line with the facts of the case and in accordance with the provision of the law. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this miscellaneous application of the assessee. We, accordingly, dismiss the miscellaneous application.
7. In the result, the assessee's miscellaneous application is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on February 13, 2014
Sd/- Sd/-
(H. L. Karwa) (N. K. Billaiya) अ य / President लेखा सद य / Accountant Member मंब ु ई Mumbai; 0दनांक Dated : 13.02.2014 व.1न.स./Roshani, Sr. PS 3 MA No. 400/Mum/2014 (A.Y. 2008-09) Shri Pooranmal D. Choudhary vs. ACIT
आदे श क# $ त&ल'प अ(े'षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ3 / The Appellant
2. 45यथ3 / The Respondent
3. आयकर आयु6त(अपील) / The CIT(A)
4. आयकर आयु6त / CIT - concerned
5. वभागीय 41त1न;ध, आयकर अपील*य अ;धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard File आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free