Chandrakant Sonigra (HUF), Solapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Solapur

MA 100/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application (M.A.No. 100/PUN/2022) filed by Chandrakant G. Sonigra (HUF) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune, dated 03/04/2019, which dismissed his appeal for the assessment year 2011-12. The application was heard by a 'SMC' Bench comprising Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury (Judicial Member) and Shri G.D. Padmahshali (Accountant Member). The assessee did not appear for the hearing, nor was any adjournment petition filed. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions of the Departmental Representative and the materials on record, concluded that the application did not reveal any mistake apparent from the record but rather sought a review of the Tribunal's earlier decision, which is not within the ambit of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 138167 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2019
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „SMC‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No. 100/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.1292/PUN/2017) (A.Y. 2011-12) Chandrakant G. Sonigra (HUF), 3875, Solapur Road, Barshi, Solapur PAN: AABHC 6460 K vs ACIT, Circle-2, Solapur. Applicant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Smt. Mugdha Sardeshpande Date of hearing : 16/06/2023 Date of pronouncement : 03/07/2023 O R D E R Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This Misc. Application preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of this Tribunal in ITA No. 1292/PUN/2017, dated 03/04/2019 for A.Y.2011-12. 2. When the matter was called, none appeared for the assessee nor any adjournment petition has been filed. The submissions of the ld.DR and the materials available on record had been considered and the matter was heard. 3. We have given considerable thought to the contents of the Misc. Application filed by the assessee and the assessee has failed to bring out any mistake apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal and as per the grounds raised in the Misc. Application, the assessee is simply MA No.100/PUN/2022 Chandrakant G. Sonigra (HUF) 2 seeking for review of the order of the Tribunal which is not mandated within the scope of sec.254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal in the order has discussed in detail from para 4 onwards and has come to the final finding at para 13 of the order, where the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 4. We also find that there are series of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Courts expounding scope of exercising powers u/sec. 254(2) of the Act. We do not deem it necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification u/sec. 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions. For fortifying this view, we make reference to the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., 262 ITR 146 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 305 ITR 227. 5. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company reported in 203 ITR 497 has held that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectification of mistake apparent from record itself and not rectification in error of judgment. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are as under: MA No.100/PUN/2022 Chandrakant G. Sonigra (HUF) 3 “The Tribunal cannot, in exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from the record itself.” We are of the considered view that in the guise of rectification, the assessee is seeking review of the order of Tribunal, which is beyond the scope of powers as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. 6. In view of the above and as per the Misc. Application filed before us, we do not find any mistake, much less any apparent mistake that warrants rectification in the order of Tribunal dated 03.04.2019. The Tribunal in its own wisdom after considering the facts of the case and the documents on record had adjudicated the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly adjudicated the issue on merits and there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal. In view thereof, Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed as devoid of any merits. 7. In the result, Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 03 rd July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. PADMAHSHALI) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 03 rd July, 2023 vr/- MA No.100/PUN/2022 Chandrakant G. Sonigra (HUF) 4 Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 5. The DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench Pune. 6. Guard File. By Order // TRUE COPY// // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.