M/s. Chintalapudi Srilekha, Vijayawada V. The ITO, Vijayawada

ITA 254/VIZ/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8983 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K SETHI
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM SMC BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, HONBLE VICE-PRESIDENT ITA NO. 254/VIZ/2016 (ASST. YEAR : 2011-12) MS. CHINTALAPUDI SRILEKHA, PROP. M/S. RAGHURAM TRADERS, SHOP NO. 128, VASTRALATHA, VIJAYAWADA. VS. ITO, WARD-1(2), VIJAYAWADA. PAN NO. AAZPC 9815 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM - FCA. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI M.K. SETHI SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 04/05/2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/05/2017. O R D E R IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1.0 THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)(IN SHORT 'CIT(A)') ARE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 1.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL ON MERITS INSTEAD OF DISPOSING OFF THE SAME BY STATING THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD TO CONSIDER U/S.154 OF THE ACT AS THE ISSUE IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 1.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE KNOWN THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS WHICH ARE PRIMA-FACIE ARE UNWARRANTED. 1.3 FOR THESE AND OTHER REASONS THAT ARE TO BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE CASE THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE TO BE QUASHED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 2 ITA NO. 354/VIZ/2016 (MS. CHINTALAPUDI SRILEKHA) 2. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE SUCCESSOR ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT SIT IN JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE BASED ON THE RECTIFICATION REQUEST BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE MISTAKE, IF ANY, WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING, CANNOT BE SUBJECT MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T.S. BALARAM ITO VS. VOLKART BROS. (82 ITR 50). 3. AS PER THE ASSESSEE ADDITION OF 1,37,703/- IS NOT WARRANTED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE PETITION IS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 1. IT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD TO CONSIDER U/S. 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ADDITION OF 1,37,073/- BEING THE DIFFERENT IN THE BALANCE OF TRADE CREDITORS WAS MADE AFTER CONSIDERING THE ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE FILED BY THE TRADER CREDITORS. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE PERUSED THE DETAILS. ADMITTEDLY, APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 2/01/2014. INSTEAD APPELLANT VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 20/02/2014 SOUGHT RECTIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,37,073/- BEING DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE OF TRADE CREDITORS. ADDITION OF RS.1,37,703/- BEING DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE OF TRADE CREDITORS WAS MADE BY THE PREDECESSOR ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE ASSESSES WHICH WERE FILED BY THE TRADE CREDITORS. HENCE SUCCESSOR ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT SIT IN JUDGMENT ON THIS ISSUE BASED ON THE RECTIFICATION REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER THIS ISSUE IS NOT A MISTAKE 3 ITA NO. 354/VIZ/2016 (MS. CHINTALAPUDI SRILEKHA) WHICH IS OBVIOUS AND PATENT. IN THE CASE OF T.S. BALARAM ITO VS VOLKART BROS. [1971] 82 ITR 50(SC), HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS AT REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 5.1 IN THE CASE OF OIL INDIA LTD. V. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 412 (CAL.), HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT FRESH DETERMINATION OF FACTS SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED IN RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CASE OF I.T.C. LTD. VS. IAC [2001] 119 TAXMAN 1000 (CAL.) HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HELD THAT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE INITIATED FOR ADOPTING CONTRACT RATE OF REBATE. HENCE, I FAIL TO PERSUADE MYSELF TO AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF APPELLANT THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN FACTS IN REJECTING THE PETITION OF THE APPELLANT U/S 154 OF THE ACT. I AGREE WITH THE AO THAT IT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD TO CONSIDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT AS THIS ISSUE IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF 154 OF THE ACT. 5. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. EXCEPT STATING THAT THE APPELLANT ADMITTED LESSER LIABILITY THAN THE LIABILITY STATED BY THE TRADE CREDITORS, NO OTHER MATERIAL WAS PLACED TO SHOW AS TO HOW THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. IN FACT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MERELY RELIED UPON THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E. 04 TH DAY OF MAY, 2017. SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) VICE-PRESIDENT DATED : 04 TH MAY, 2017. 4 ITA NO. 354/VIZ/2016 (MS. CHINTALAPUDI SRILEKHA) VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE MS. CHINTALAPUDI SRILEKHA, PROP. M/S.RAGHURAM TRADERS, SHOP NO. 128, VASTRALATHA, VIJAYAWADA. 2. THE REVENUE ITO, WARD-1(2), VIJAYAWADA. 3. THE PCIT, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA. 5. THE D.R., VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER