TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 876
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") came to be disposed of. The said Miscellaneous Applications sought recall of a common order dated 19th December 2018 passed by the ITAT in two appeals, one preferred by the Revenue and the other by the Petitioner/Assessee. 2. The facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition, in brief, are as follows: A] For Assessment Year ("AY") 2010-11, an Assessment Order dated 25th March 2013 came to be passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-8(1), Mumbai, in the case of the Petitioner. B] Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai ("CIT[A]"), which appeal came to be partly allowed by an order dated 4th January 2016. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner's Appeal, being ITA No. 3044/Mum/2016. Both Miscellaneous Applications sought recall of the common order dated 19th December 2018 on several grounds, including, inter alia, that Paper Book Nos. II and II-A had inadvertently not been considered by the ITAT while passing the said common order. H] By the impugned order dated 20th February 2023, both Miscellaneous Applications came to be disposed of. Miscellaneous Application No. 275/Mum/2019 was dismissed as being devoid of merit. Miscellaneous Application No. 276/Mum/2019, on the other hand, was partly allowed and the earlier order dated 19th December 2018 was recalled to the limited extent of adjudicating upon an additional ground taken/filed by the Petitioner on 10th October ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stamp of the ITAT as well as a signature. Though the said affidavit does not bear any such rubber stamp, the index to Paper Book No. II-A categorically records that the documents contained therein were submitted as an enclosure to the said affidavit. The said affidavit, inter alia, seeks permission under Rule 29 of the said Rules. The Petitioner therefore contends that the said affidavit formed part of Paper Book No. II-A and that the documents contained therein were submitted along with the said affidavit. 5. The Petitioner has also drawn our attention to the affidavit dated 14th September 2023 of Mr. Yogesh Joijode, an Associate of SMMP and Associates, Chartered Accountants, filed on behalf of the Petitioner. In the said affidavit, Mr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... common order dated 19th December 2018 failed to take into consideration Paper Book No. II-A filed together with the said affidavit, the Petitioner would not press and accordingly gives up its similar grievance insofar as Paper Book No. II is concerned. Mr. Singh, with his usual fairness, has further agreed that the question as to whether Paper Book No. II-A was duly and properly filed in compliance with Rule 29 of the said Rules, particularly in view of the fact that it was accompanied by the said affidavit rather than by a separate petition under Rule 29, may also be considered by the ITAT upon remand. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, has opposed the present Writ Petition. He ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re considered. In such circumstances, the observations of the ITAT expressing doubt as to whether the said documents had ever been filed before it cannot, prima facie, be sustained. 12. In these peculiar circumstances, and particularly in view of the express statement made by Mr. Ajay Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as recorded hereinabove, we are of the view that, in the interest of justice, the impugned order requires to be partly set aside, albeit only insofar as Miscellaneous Application No. 275/Mum/2019 is concerned. 13. Accordingly, the impugned order is partly set aside. Miscellaneous Application No. 275/Mum/2019 is remitted to the ITAT for a fresh consideration. While doing so, the ITAT shall onl....