The ITO, - 4(3), Indore V. Shri Harish Kumar Bhatia, Indore

MA 1/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7750 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Keywords: Tax effect

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 MA NO.1/IND/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.502/IND/2010) A.Y. 2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3) INDORE ... APPLICANT VS HARISH KUMAR BHATIA, INDORE PAN ACFPB 4464 Q ... RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAKASH JAIN, CA DATE OF HEARING : 2.3.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2.3.2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT A MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28.7.2011 (ITA NO. 502/IND/2010) WHE REIN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED ON THE PLEA THAT THE TAX EFFE CT IS BELOW PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT. 2 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS PETITION, THE LD. SR. DR, SHRI ARUN DEWAN, ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENT WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE PET ITION. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI PRAKASH JAIN, CONTENDED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW PRESCRIBED LIMIT, THEREFORE, TH ERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS HAS BEEN CANVASSED BY THE LEARNE D SR. DR. IT WAS FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE TOTAL QUANTUM OF INCOME UNDER DISP UTE WAS RS.4,65,459/- AND EVEN IF THE INCOME-TAX, EDUCATION CESS ARE ALSO CALCULATED, THE TAX EFFECT COMES TO RS.1,42,430/- WHICH IS BELOW RS.2 LACS, TH E PRESCRIBED LIMIT, COVERED BY THE CBDT INSTRUCTIONS. THE LD. SR. DR, ON PERUSA L OF RECORD, FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS REALLY BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT I.E. RS. 2 LACS. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERA TION, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THE OR DER DATED 28.7.2011, WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON ANOTHER DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAJAN CLOTH STORES (ITA NO.365/IND/2010, DATED 31.5.2011) AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS ALONG WITH THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3/2011 DATED 9.2.2011 RAISING THE MONETARY LIMI T. THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF LAXMI JEWELS LIMITED (I TA NO. 2165/MUM/2010) ORDER DATED 12.4.2011 WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOW ED IN M/S INDIA SAFETY VALVES LIMITED (ITA NO. 648 TO 651/MUM/2010) ORDER DATED 29.4.2011 AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR HUF HAVE ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED. NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE REVENUE EVIDENCING THAT THE TAX IS AB OVE PRESCRIBED MONETARY 3 LIMIT, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT UNDER THE GUISE OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE REVENUE IS TRYING TO GET THE ORDER REVIEWED WHICH POWER IS NOT VESTED WITH THE TRIBUNAL AND ONLY CLERICAL/ARITHMAT ICAL MISTAKES WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORD CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED BY THE T RIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO INHERENT POWERS OF REVIEW WHICH MUST BE EXPRESSL Y CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN NIRANJAN & COMPANY V. I.T.A.T.; 122 ITR 519 (CAL) AND CIT VS. I.T.A.T.; 196 ITR 640 (ORISSA) SU PPORTS OUR VIEW. SINCE NO APPARENT MISTAKE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE EITHER SIDE AND THE SPECIFIC ADMISSION OF THE LD. SR. DR THAT THE TAX E FFECT IS BELOW PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, CONSEQUENTLY THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE REV ENUE IS HAVING NO MERIT, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENT OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 2.3.12. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2.3.2012 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE !VYS!