CIT, Panaji - Goa v. Francis Crasto - 2016-LL-0916-7

Citation	2016-LL-0916-7
Appellant Name	CIT, Panaji - Goa
Respondent Name	Francis Crasto
Court	ITAT-Panaji
Relevant Act	Income-tax
Date of Order	16/09/2016
Assessment Year	2008-09
Judgment	View Judgment
Bot Summary:	Applications filed by the Revenue against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No. 55 56/PNJ/2013, dated 08/06/2015. At the time of hearing, Departmental Representative was unable to point out any specific error apparent from the order of the Tribunal. On a specific query to point out any specific error in the order of the Tribunal, the Departmental Representative submitted that there was none. In reply, Authorized Representative of the assessee vehemently supported the order the Tribunal. As the Revenue is unable to point out any specific error in the order of the Tribunal and the Misc. Applications are only for reconsidering of the facts as mentioned in the order of the Tribunal, the Misc. Order Pronounced in the Court at the close of the hearing on Friday, the 16th day of September, 2016 at Goa.

IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, HON BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HON BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO. 51/PAN/2015 (ITA No. 55/PNJ/2013) (Asst. Year : 2008-09) CIT, Panaji - Goa. Vs. Mr. Francis Crasto, H.No. 63, Gaonsa Waddo, Mapusa Goa. PAN No. AEZPC 6375 F (Appellant) (Respondent) M.A.NO. 52/PAN/2015 (ITA No. 56/PNJ/2013) (Asst. Year : 2008-09) CIT, Panaji - Goa. Vs. Mrs. Nelly Crasto, H.No. 63, Gaonsa Waddo, Mapusa Goa. PAN No. AEOPC 6041 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sham J. Kamat CA with Shri Chinmay S. Kamat - CA Department By : Shri Ramesh S. Mutagar - DR Date of hearing : 16/09/2016. Date of pronouncement : 16/09/2016. ORDER PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER These Misc. Applications filed by Revenue against order of Tribunal in ITA No. 55 & 56/PNJ/2013, dated 08/06/2015. 2 MA No. 51 & 52/PAN/2015 2. Shri Sham J. Kamat, CA along with Shri Chinmay S. Kamat, CA represented on behalf of assessee and Shri Ramesh S. Mutagar, Departmental Representative represented on behalf of Revenue. 3. At time of hearing, Departmental Representative was unable to point out any specific error apparent from order of Tribunal. On specific query to point out any specific error in order of Tribunal, Departmental Representative submitted that there was none. 4. In reply, Authorized Representative of assessee vehemently supported order Tribunal. 5. We have considered rival submissions. As Revenue is unable to point out any specific error in order of Tribunal and Misc. Applications are only for reconsidering of facts as mentioned in order of Tribunal, Misc. Applications filed by Revenue stand dismissed. 6. In result, Misc. Applications filed by Revenue stand dismissed. Order Pronounced in Court at close of hearing on Friday, 16th day of September, 2016 at Goa. Sd/- sd/- (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 16 t h September , 2016. vr/- 3 MA No. 51 & 52/PAN/2015 Copy to: 1. Assessee. a) Mr. Francis Crasto, H.No. 63, Gaonsa Waddo, Mapusa Goa. b) Mrs. Nelly Crasto, H.No. 63, Gaonsa Waddo, Mapusa Goa. 2. Revenue. CIT, Panaji - Goa. 3. CIT, Panaji - Goa. 4. CIT(A), 5. D.R . 6. Guard file. By order Assistant Registrar I.T.A.T., Panaji CIT, Panaji - Goa v. Francis Crasto

Metadata

Judgment