The Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax (OSD) Circle-14, Pune V. Sunil Tukaram Zambare, Pune

MA 102/PUN/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5364 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” ᭠यायपीठ पुणे मᱶ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI SS VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM M.A. No.102/PUN/2021 (Arising out of ITA No.358/PUN/2017) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Jt. CIT(OSD), Circle-14, Pune ........... आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/s. Sunil Tukaram Zambare Morgaon Road, Kasaba, A/p Baramati, Pune – 411005 PAN : AAAPZ8814B ........ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / Respondent Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee by : None सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख / Date of Hearing : 07/01/2022 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 14/01/2022 आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: The Revenue through this Miscellaneous Petition is seeking rectification of the order dated 10/07/2019 of this Tribunal in ITA No.358/PUN/2017 for the assessment year 2009-10 on the ground that the Tribunal had passed an order relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perichery and CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court without going into the merits of the issues raised in the appeals. 2. Despite due service of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called, therefore, the Bench presumed that the assessee is not 2 MA No.102/PUN/2021 interested in prosecuting the present Miscellaneous Petition; and proceeded to dispose of the matter in the absence of assessee or his representative. 3. We have circumspectly gone through the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.358/PUN/2017 and find that the Tribunal after considering the submissions of both the parties has passed the order discussing the position of the law governing the issue in appeal. 4. We also noted that the Revenue has not pointed out any specific mistake apparent in the order of the Tribunal. The Revenue, by filing this Miscellaneous Application, desires this Tribunal to review in own order; however, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal does not have any power u/s 254(2) to review its own order. The power vested with the Tribunal relates to the mistake apparent on record. The Tribunal, after considering the grounds raised had decided the issue in appeal passed the order on merits. If the Revenue has any grievance against the order of the Tribunal, the Revenue can pursue proceeding available under Act. The Tribunal cannot review its own order in the garb of power vested u/s 254(2) of the Act. In our opinion, there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal, accordingly we dismiss the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 14 th day of January, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (SS VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 14 th January, 2022. DOC 3 MA No.102/PUN/2021 आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-7, Pune. 4. The CIT-3, Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.