Bhagirath Tea & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

MA 105/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3669 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J J MEHROTRA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.105/LKW/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.915/LKW/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-2011 M/S BHAGIRATH TEA & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD., 19 KM OF NH-25, KANPUR ROAD, DAROGA KHERA, LUCKNOW. PAN:AABCB5993P VS. A.C.I.T., CC-1, LUCKNOW. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI J. J. MEHROTRA, C. A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 30/10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 4 / 1 1 /2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PO INTING OUT CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 2. THIS IS THE SUBMISSION OF LEARNED A. R. OF THE A SSESSEE THAT IT CAN BE SEEN ON PAGE NO. 3 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION THAT IT IS OBSERVED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 7 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT REFER ENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO PAGE NO. 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THEREAFTER, THE T RIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT TRUE NATURE OF THE EXPENSES IS NOT AVAILABLE I N THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGES 30 & 31 OF THE PAPE R BOOK, THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE ARE AVAILABLE WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL ALTHOUGH THESE PAGES WERE ALSO REFERRED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. HE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL [2] DECISION IS ON THE BASIS THAT THE DETAILS OF THE EX PENDITURE WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH THIS WAS NEVER A CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE WERE NOT PLACED BEF ORE THEM AND THE CASE OF THE REVENUE WAS SIMPLE THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS OF CAPITAL NATURE AND NOT OF REVENUE NATURE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN C OURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, AT NO STAGE, THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE WER E ENQUIRED INTO AND IN SPITE OF THIS, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED FOR NO T PROVIDING THE DETAILS AND NATURE OF EXPENSES. FINALLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT BECAUSE THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 30 & 31 AND THE TRI BUNAL DECISION IS ON THE BASIS THAT THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES ARE NOT MADE AVAILABLE, IT AMOUNTS TO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND THERE FORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS NO MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT ON PAGE NO. 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES AND ON PAGE NO. 30 & 31 IS COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF LIFESTYLE FABRICS IN THE BOOKS OF BAGIRATH TEA & CHEMICALS LT D. I.E. THE ASSESSEE. AS PER OUR LOG BOOK FOR DATE OF HEARING THIS APPEA L I.E. 6 TH JULY 2015, IT IS SEEN THAT REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND LIST OF JUDGMENTS WAS FILED CONTAINING 7 JUDGMENTS AND THER E IS NO MENTION ABOUT REFERENCE TO PAGES 30 & 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK. MORE OVER, EVEN IF PAGES 30 & 31 ARE CONSIDERED, THESE PAGES CONTAIN THE COPY O F LEDGER ACCOUNT OF LIFESTYLE FABRICS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF PRE OPERATIVE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR OF RS.4,46,984/- BECAUSE AS PER PAGES 30 & 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE TOTAL AMOUNT DEBITED IS RS.2,88,488/- AND NOT R S.4,46,984/-. HENCE, THESE PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK BEING PAGE NO. 30 & 3 1 WERE NOT REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF HEARING AND THEREFORE, THE TRIB UNAL WAS NOT SUPPOSE TO [3] LOOK INTO THESE PAGES AND DECIDE THE APPEAL AND EVE N IF THESE PAGES ARE LOOKED INTO, THESE PAGES DO NOT CONTAIN DETAILS OF PRE-OPERATIVE EXPENSES OF RS.4,46,984/- BEING THE AMOUNT OF DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO APPA RENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:04/11/2015 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR