ITO Vs Smt. Radhika Garg (ITAT Delhi)
The Revenue filed documents along with a covering letter dated 17.06.2019 in relation to a purported Miscellaneous Application before the Tribunal. The documents included Form 36 (memorandum of appeal), grounds of appeal, additional information sheet, copies of earlier orders (Tribunal, CIT(A), and Assessing Officer), and a certificate regarding communication of the Tribunal’s order.
The assessee’s counsel raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Revenue had effectively filed a fresh appeal rather than a valid miscellaneous application. It was contended that the documents submitted, including Form 36 and grounds of appeal, indicated an attempt to re-agitate the matter as an appeal, which is not permissible under the guise of a miscellaneous application. Accordingly, it was requested that the filing be rejected.
In response, the Departmental Representative submitted that the documents were filed as a miscellaneous application along with reasons for filing, based on directions of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. It was explained that since no specific format exists for filing a miscellaneous application, the entire appeal set was submitted along with reasons, and the filing should be treated as a valid miscellaneous application.
On merits, the Revenue argued that there was a “mistake apparent on record” in the Tribunal’s earlier order. It was contended that the Tribunal failed to properly consider evidence, statements recorded by the Investigation Wing, and judicial precedents relied upon by the Revenue. The Assessing Officer’s reasons highlighted that the case involved alleged bogus long-term capital gains (LTCG) through transactions in shares of a company, supported by investigation findings and statements indicating accommodation entries. The Revenue asserted that the Tribunal overlooked material facts, disregarded findings of the CIT(A), and failed to consider relevant case laws, leading to incorrect conclusions.
