Shri Pradeep Kumar Malani, Udaipura V. The ACIT, 1(1), Bhopal

MA 1/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6406 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-04-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH H P VERMA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.1/IND/2011 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO. 193/IND/2007) BLOCK PEIORD 1.4.1996 TO 13.12.2002 PRADEEP MALANI, UDAIPURA PAN - ABJPM 6151 C APPLICANT VS. ACIT-1(1), BHOPAL RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : S/SH. H.P. VERMA & ASHISH GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA, SR. DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES SEEKING RECALLING/RECTIFICATION OF THE OR DER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 6.8.2010. 2. DURING HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, MR . H.P. VERMA ALONG WITH SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS IDENTICAL TO THE SUBMI SSIONS AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION. ON THE OTH ER HAND, SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA, LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL BY CONTENDING THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER AND THE ASSESSE E IS MERELY TRYING TO GET THE ORDER REVIEWED WHICH POWER IS NOT AVAILABLE WIT H THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF 2 BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE LOG-BOOK OF THE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND THE NOTINGS MADE THEREIN ON 27.7.2010 AND FOUND THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN FRAM ED AS PER THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL. I F THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL MENTIONED HEREIN ABOVE ARE ANALYSED AND KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME AND ALSO NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE CONTENTIO N RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED U/S 254(2) OF THE A CT. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS LIMITED POWERS TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. THE POWERS OF VIEW MUST BE CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE . REVIEW OF AN ORDER MEANS REEXAMINATION OR TO GIVE A SECOND VIEW OF THE MATTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALTERATION OR REVERSAL OF THE VIEW ALRE ADY TAKEN AFTER CHANGING THE EARLIER OPINION OR VIEW. THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E TRIBUNAL U/S 254(1) IS THE EFFECTIVE ORDER SO FAR AS THE APPEAL IS CONCERN ED. ANY ORDER PASSED U/S 254(2) EITHER ALLOWING AMENDMENT OR REFUSING TO AME ND GETS MERGED WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED. THE ORDER AS AMENDED OR REMAINING UNAMENDED IS THE EFFECTIVE ORDER FOR ALL PRACTICABLE PURPOSES. T HAT IS THE FINAL ORDER OF THE APPEAL. RECALLING OF ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 2 54(2) AS RECALLING AUTOMATICALLY NECESSITATES REHEARING AND RE-ADJUDIC ATION OF THE APPEAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN CIT VS. B.P. A GRAWAL (90 TAXMAN 283) (CAL), KARAN & CO. (253 ITR 131) (DEL), NIRANJAN & CO. LTD. VS. ITAT (122 ITR 519) (CAL), CIT VS. ITAT (196 ITR 640) (ORI) AND CI T VS. ITAT (155 TAXMAN 378) (DEL). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, NO CASE 3 IS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS MISCELLANEO US PETITION, THEREFORE, SAME IS DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSE ES IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON 1.4.2011. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1.4.2011 !VYAS! COPY TO APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE