Anklav Mercantile Co.-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Vadodara V. The DCIT, Circle-1(3), Vadodara

MA 1/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the assessee, The Anklav Mercantile Co-op Credit Society Ltd., and Anyona Sahayak Sahakari Mandali Ltd., who filed Miscellaneous Applications seeking to recall the ITAT's order in ITA No. 1089/Ahd/2019 and ITA Nos. 1393 & 1394/Ahd/2019. The assessee argued that the ITAT had not considered the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT correctly, which they believed supported their claim for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act for interest income from nationalized banks. The ITAT, however, found that the original order had considered the Supreme Court's judgment, albeit not in the manner the assessee desired, and thus dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135606 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 431 ITR 1(SC)/[2021] 123 taxmann.com 161(SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर आयकरआयकर आयकर अपी अपीअपी अपीलीय लीयलीय लीय अिधकरण अिधकरणअिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Balkrishna Thakker, A.R Revenue by : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr. D.R सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13/01/2023 घोषणा क तारीख /Date o f Pro nouncement : 11/04/2023 आदेश आदेशआदेश आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee by way of this Miscellaneous Application is seeking to re-call the order of the ITAT in ITA No. 1089/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 on the reasoning that there is an apparent mistake in the order of the ITAT. Sl. No(s) MA/ITA No(s) Asset. Year(s) Appeal(s) by Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. M.A No.1/Ahd/2022 In ITA No. 1089/Ahd/2019 2014-15 The Anklav Mercantile Co-op Credit Society Ltd., Near Bus Stand, Swati Shopping Centre, Anklav-388510. PAN: AAAAT2888A D.C.I.T, Circle-1(3), Vadodara. 2-3. M.A No.156 & 157/Ahd/2021 in ITA No. 1393 & 1394/Ahd/2019 2014-15 & 2015-16 Anyona Sahayak Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Sikkawala Ni Khadki, Nagarkuva Road, L.B.S. Road, Petlad-388450. PAN: AAAAA5140J D.C.I.T, Circle-1(3), Vadodara. M.A No.01/Ahd/2022 inITA no.1089/AHD/2019 Asstt. Year 2014-15 & 2 others 2 2. The assessee has filed Miscellaneous Application running into 4 pages pointing out mistake apparent from the record in the order of the ITAT with sole grievance that the judgment of Hon’ble S.C in the case of Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 431 ITR 1(SC)/[2021] 123 taxmann.com 161(SC) has not been considered in right perspective. As per the assesse, the issue for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act representing the interest income on the money deposit with nationalized bank was decided in its favour by the Hon’ble S.C in the case cited above. However, the ITAT inadvertently considering the judgement in wrong perspective has made reference only to para 45 of the said order while deciding the issue against the assessee. As such the assessee in the Miscellaneous Application has made references to various paras of judgement of Hon’ble S.C. by contending that the assessee is eligible for deduction of interest u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act received from Nationalized Bank. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the ITAT. 4. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The provisions of section 254(2) of the Act deals with the mistakes apparent from the record which are rectifiable. To apply the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, there should be a mistake in the order and the same should be apparent from the record. The power granted under the statute cannot be exercised for revision or review of the order in the garb of rectification of the apparent mistake. 4.1 The mistake refers to the misconception, wrong or inaccurate understanding and the word apparent refers something which can be seen or visible, obvious. Thus, the apparent mistakes refer to the misconception, wrong understanding of the facts and the law whose finding is not dependent on the arguments. M.A No.01/Ahd/2022 inITA no.1089/AHD/2019 Asstt. Year 2014-15 & 2 others 3 4.2 In view of the above it can be summarized that the provisions under section 254(2) of the Act can be applied only to the apparent mistakes which will not result in the substitution of new finding. Thus, the mistakes which are far from the obvious material/information and can be ascertained only by the long drawn process of argument cannot be categorized mistake which can be rectified under the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. In other words, such mistake ceases to be an apparent mistake. As observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Master Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1966] 17 STC 360, an error which is apparent on the face of the record should be one which is not an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on questions of fact or law. 4.3 Coming to the case on hand, admittedly the ITAT has passed the order after considering the judgement referred by the learned AR the time of hearing i.e. the Hon’ble SC judgment cited above. The ITAT while drafting the order has found fit to refer the relevant paragraph 45 of the order of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court i.e. Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs CIT reported in 431 ITR 1. But it cannot be said that the order has been passed by the ITAT without considering the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above. In other words, the ITAT did not find important to reproduce or refer the entire judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order. As such the ITAT has interpreted the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court cited above while drafting its order. There can be a possibility of making the mistake on the part of the ITAT while interpreting the judgment but that does not mean that the order of the ITAT suffers from any infirmity within the meaning of the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any mistake which could be rectified in the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee. Accordingly, we dismiss the same. 4.4 In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. M.A No.01/Ahd/2022 inITA no.1089/AHD/2019 Asstt. Year 2014-15 & 2 others 4 Coming to the MA No. 156 & 157/Ahd/2021 in ITA Nos. 1393 & 1394/Ahd/2019 for AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 in the case of Anyonya Sahayak Sahakari Mandali Ltd. 5. At the outset, we note that the issues raised by the assessee in its grounds of Miscellaneous Application in the case of Anyona Shahyak Sahakari Mandali Ltd. for AYs 2014-15 & 2015-16 are identical to the issues raised by the assessee in Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 1/Ahd/2022 in ITA No. 1089/AHD/2019 for the assessment year 2014-15. Therefore, the findings given in MA No. 1/AHD/2022 shall also be applicable to the M.A Nos. 156 & 157/Ahd/2021 in ITA Nos. 1393 & 1394/Ahd/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16. The appeal of the assessee for the in MA No. 1/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2014-15 has been decided vide paragraph No. 4 of this order against the assessee. The learned AR and the DR also agreed that whatever will be the findings in M.A No. 01/Ahd/2022 for the assessment year 2014-15 shall also be applied to the other two M.A also. Hence, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by asseesee are dismissed. 5.1 In the result, the above M.A filed by the assessee are dismissed. 6. In the combined results, all the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the different assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 11/04/2023 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Tue Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 11/04/2023 Manish