TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD, V. DCIT RG 8(3),

MA 100/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3641 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI , . . , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.99/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5689/MUM/2006) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 M/S TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. A-25, MIDC, MAROL INDUSTRIAL AREA,ROAD NO.3, ANDHERI(E) MUMBAI-400093 / VS. ACIT/DCIT, RANGE-8(3), ROOM NO.204, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( /ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAACT2724P M.A. NO.100/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.4792/MUM/2006) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 M/S TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. A-25, MIDC, MAROL INDUSTRIAL AREA,ROAD NO.3, ANDHERI(E) MUMBAI-400093 / VS. ACIT/DCIT, RANGE-8(3), ROOM NO.204, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 ( /ASSESSEE) ( / REVENUE) P.A. NO.AAACT2724P / REVENUE BY SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, CIT-DR / ASSESSEE BY): SHRI VIJAY MEHTA ! ' # $ / DATE OF HEARING : 09/10/2015 # $ / DATE OF ORDER : 16/10/2015 M/S TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. M.A. NOS.99 & 100/MUM/2015 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) : BOTH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, M.A. NO.99/MUM/ 2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.5689/MUM/200 6) AND M.A. NO.100/MUM/2015(ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.4792/MUM / 2006), ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING CLARIFICAT ION/AMENDMENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY PLACING RELIANCE UP ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 1241/AHD/2006 ETC., ORD ER DATED 11/02/2011, WHEREIN, THE DECISION FROM HONBLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASIAN STRACH COMPANY LTD. (2010) 326 ITR 56 (BOM.) ALONG WITH THE DECISION FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT VS K RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR (2007) 295 ITR 228 (SC) HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED. 2. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ITA NO.4792/MUM/2006 HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION BEING M .A. NO.100/MUM/2015 DOES NOT SURVIVE AND FURTHER THE AS SESSEE IS SEPARATELY FILING A LETTER TO PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW SAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. WE NOTE THAT NO SUCH LE TTER WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH LETTER, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. AT THIS STAGE, WE NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE COMBINED ORDER DATED 02/02/2015 HAS DIRECTED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION FROM HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT VS K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR AFFIRMING THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF PUNJAB STAINLESS STEEL INDUSTRIES, THUS, NO GRIE VANCE IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS M/S TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. M.A. NOS.99 & 100/MUM/2015 3 DIRECTED TO ALSO CONSIDER THE DECISION OF THE AHMAD ABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) DATED 11/02/2011AND THE CAS ES MENTIONED THEREIN INCLUDING THE DECISION FROM HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ASIAN STARCH COMPANY L TD. (SUPRA), THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 02/02/2015 HAS MERELY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FOLLOW THE DECISION FROM H ONBLE APEX COURT. HOW THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED IS NOT KNOWN? 2.1. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE DONT HAVE THE POWER OF RE VIEW U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT AFTER HEA RING THE APPEAL ON 20/01/2015, IDENTICAL ORDER WAS PASSED IN THE OP EN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH SIDE S AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING AND ACCORDINGLY ON 02/02/ 2015 THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED. 2.2. WHILE DEALING WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, ONLY ARITHMETICAL, GRAMMATICAL O R MISTAKE OF LIKE NATURE, IF ANY, CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED AND NOT WHICH CAN BE DRAWN BY A LONG PROCESS OF ARGUMENT/REASONING LEADI NG TO CONTRARY DECISION. EVEN OTHERWISE, BY SENDING THE M ATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION FROM HONBLE APEX COU RT/HIGH COURT, NO PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE H AVE NO HESITATION TO RECALL THE ORDER, IF ANY PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO EITHER SIDE. FROM VARIOUS DECISION FROM HONBLE APEX COUR T AND HONBLE HIGH COURTS, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER BUT ONLY CAN RECTIFY IF ANY MISTAKE IS APPARENT FRO M RECORD. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE AC T IS VERY LIMITED AND MERITS OF THE CASE CANNOT BE GONE INTO, THEREFORE, WE M/S TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (I) LTD. M.A. NOS.99 & 100/MUM/2015 4 FIND NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, RESUL TANTLY, THE APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISS ED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/10/2015. SD/- SD/- ( N.K.BILLAIYA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ' MUMBAI; & DATED : 16/10/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '( )* / THE APPELLANT 2. +,)* / THE RESPONDENT. 3. - - ! . ( '( ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. - - ! . / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 0 12 +3 , - '( $ '34 , ! ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 25 6' / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ,0( + //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , ! ' / ITAT, MUMBAI