PROTHIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES P.LTD., V. DCIT - CIR 8(2),

MA 103/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3783 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VISHWAS JADHAV

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JM AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, AM M.A. NO. 103/MUM/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 1693/MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 M/S. PROTHIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD., C - 7, EEC HOUSE, 2 ND /3 RD FLOOR, DALIA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, OFF NEW LINK ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI - 400 / VS. THE DCIT - 8(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADCP 5194J ( / CROSS OBJECTOR ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / A SSESSEE BY: SHRI HARSH R. SHAH SHRI PRATIK PODDAR / REVENUE BY : SHRI VISHWAS J AD H AV / DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 0 4 . 12 .201 5 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: WITH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE SEEK TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH NEED TO BE RECTIFIED. PROTHIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES 2 2. THE LD. COUNSEL BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL THE REASONS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATION STATING THAT THE RATIO OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. VS DCIT 325 ITR 102 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BLACK & VEATCH CONSULTING PVT. LTD., 348 ITR 72 FAVOURING THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WRONGLY INTERP RETED AS AGAINST THE APPLICANT. THE LD. COUNSEL TOOK US TO VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE L D. COUNSEL. THE ENTIRE GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROUND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA). 4. IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW, THIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD RECTIFIABLE U/S. 254 OF THE ACT. OUR VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMESH ELECTRIC & TRADING CO. 203 ITR 497. IN OUR VIEW, THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT CAN BE EXE RCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS, AS HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE PRESENT CASE. FAILURE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT. I N THE PRESENT CASE, THE ALLEGED FAILURE, AT LEAST ON ONE COUNT, IS ATTRIBUTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER AND NOT THE TRIBUNAL. IN OUR VIEW, THE TRIBUNAL HAD NO JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 254(2) TO PASS THE SECOND ORDER . PROTHIOUS ENGINEERING SERVICES 3 5. DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, WE DECLINE TO ENTERTAIN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE T IME OF HEARING ON 4 TH DECEMBER, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) (N.K. BILLAIYA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 4 TH DECEMBER , 201 5 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI