Mr. Baljinder Singh, Fatehgarh Sahib V. ACIT, Mandi Gobindgarh

MA 10/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4239 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Assessee Lawyers: FERRY SOFAT
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.10/CHD/2016 IN ITA NO.1058/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) MR.BALJINDER SINGH, VS. THE A.C.I.T., V&PO SALANA DULLA SINGH WALA, CIRCLE TEH. AMLOH, DISTT. FATEHGARH SAHIB. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: ALZPS8560M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI FERRY SOFAT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.04.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE APPLICANT UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T. IN THE APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT A MISTAKE HAS CREPT AT PARA 8 OF THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. DATED 1.9.2015. IT WAS STATED THAT IN THE SAID PARAGRAPH, IT HAS BEEN MENT IONED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS V ARIES BETWEEN 1.74% TO 35.89%, WHICH IS A HUGE VARIATION. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THIS FIGURE WAS TAKEN FROM PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER DATED 1.12.2011. THE CON TENTION OF 2 THE ASSESSEE IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS T HAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 2, WHILE STATING THE FIGUR E OF GROSS PROFIT FOR VARIOUS YEARS, THE GROSS PROFIT FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS CORRECTLY SHOWN AT RS.8,77,123/- BUT TH E GROSS RECEIPT HAS BEEN WRONGLY TAKEN AS RS.24,43,697/-, W HICH IN FACT, WAS GROSS PROFIT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND THE EXACT GROSS RECEIPT WAS RS.1,65,89,337/-, WHICH RES ULTED INTO GP RATE OF 35.89% AS AGAINST THE EXACT RATE OF 5.28 % FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS FURTHER STATED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REJECTED. HENCE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION MAY KINDLY BE ALL OWED. 2. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., WE OBS ERVE THAT THE FINDINGS ARE GIVEN BY THE I.T.A.T. IN PARA 8, WHICH READ AS UNDER : 8. ONCE, CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS, THE ONLY ISSUE REMAINS IS THE QUANTUM OF G.P. UNDISPUTEDLY, IN SUCH A CASE AN ESTIMATION OF THE G.P. HAS TO BE MADE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF CHART FO R G.P. OF THE ASSESSEE DECLARED IN EARLIER YEARS, AS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAME VARIES BETWEEN 1.74 % TO 35.89%, WHICH IS A VERY HUGE VARIATION. ON PERUSAL OF THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED D.R ., IT IS SEEN THAT THE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE ITAT AN D PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN SUCH CASES HAVE APPLIED AT A RATE 8% OR ABOVE. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE OVERALL PICTURE OF THE CASE, FIND 8 % AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) TO BE REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE. 3 3. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE GP R ATE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAS WRONGLY BEEN TAKEN AT 3 5.89% AS AGAINST 5.28% ON THE BASIS OF FIGURE TAKEN IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE OBSERVE THAT THERE IS NO MIST AKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF HE I.T.A.T. SI NCE THE FIGURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND IN FACT, THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE I.T. A.T. IS NOT ACTUALLY INFLUENCED BY THESE FIGURES AND HAD IN FAC T, BASED ON VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS OF JURISD ICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. IN THIS VIEW, WE DO N OT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF TH E I.T.A.T. SINCE THE POWERS OF THE I.T.A.T. ARE CONFINED TO TH E RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD ONLY AND NOT FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE PRAYER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE APPLICANT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 8 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 8 TH APRIL, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH