M/s Cheslind Textiles Limited, Bangalore V. CIT, Bangalore

MA 1/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0357 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWATI S PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP JAHNWAR
• Section: 80HHC; 254(2); 22; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.1(BANG)/2011 (IN ITA NO.461(BANG)/2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) M/S.CHESLIND TEXTILES LTD., NO.147, 12 TH MAIN, III BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-34. VS. APPLICANT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE-1, BANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY: SHRI SANDEEP JAHNWAR. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SWATI S. PATEL. O R D E R PER SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI, JM: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FIELD BY THE ASS ESSEE STATING THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECOR D RELATING TO THE DECISION TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THE DEDUCTION OF 90% OF TOTAL GAIN ON CANCELLATION OF FORWARD CONTRACT FOR THE CO MPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HE REINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'] 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING SHRI SANDEEP JAHNWAR, TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT HAS MA NO.1(BANG)/2011 PAGE 2 OF 3 RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.INTERGOLD (I) LTD. A ND CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT U/S 263 ON THIS MATTER BUT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE M/S.INTERGOLD (I) LTD. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO STRESS TH AT THE RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S.INTERGOLD (I) LTD. IS NOT CORRECT AND THEREFORE, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH NEEDS RECTIFICATION. SMT. SWATI S.PATIL, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RE CORD. 3. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF M/S.INTERGOLD (I) LTD. AND HAS HELD IT TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING IS REVIEW OF OUR ORDER. THIS, IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND REVIEW IS NOT PERMITTED U/S 254(2) OF TH E ACT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER EKS MA NO.1(BANG)/2011 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE