ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. M.Ct.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

MA 117/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8950 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: R RAJASEKARAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. M.P. NO. 117/MDS/2012 (IN I.T.A. NO. 1426/MDS/2009) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE IV(1), CHENNAI - 600 034 . (PETITIONER) V. M/S M.CT.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD., 761, ANNA SALAI, CHENNAI - 600 002 . PAN : AAACM4530C (RESPONDENT) PETITIONER BY : SHRI S. DASGUPTA, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. RAJ ASEKARAN, CA DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.09.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER:- THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ORDER IN I.T.A. NO. 1426/MDS/ 2009 DATED 28/7/2011, HAVE UPHELD THAT NO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D WOULD BE CHARGEABLE PRIOR TO THE AY 2004-05. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE DATE OF ORDER IS 29/3/2005 WHICH IS AFTER THE DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE SECTION 23 4D. HENCE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF CIT-I, CHENNAI VS. M/S CONVANSYS (INDIA) P LTD. (TC A NO.914 OF M.P. NO. 117/MDS/12 2 2009 DT. 30.9.2011) AND CIT, CHENNAI VS. IDFC LTD. (TCA NO. 154 OF 2008 DT. 8.9.2011), THE INTEREST U/S. 234D IS CH ARGEABLE FOR THE ORDERS PASSED AFTER THE DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE SAID SECTION. HENCE, IT IS PRAYED THAT, THE HONBLE ITAT, SHALL G IVE DIRECTION TO LEVY INTEREST U/S 234D. IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ITAT MAY BE PLEASED TO DISPOSE OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION AT THE EARLIEST CONVENIENCE. 2. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MP IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEC TION 254(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') READ WITH RULE 34A OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. LEARNED D.R., ON T HE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT WHAT WAS SOUGHT THROUGH THE MISCELLA NEOUS PETITION WAS ONLY RECTIFICATION OF ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CO. LTD. (340 I TR 580). 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FINDING OF THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUES OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D APPEAR AT PARA 25 OF ITS ORDER DATED 28.7.2011, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDE R:- IN REGARD TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234D OF THE ACT, IT IS NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 1999-20 0. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF AYYASPPAN TEXTILES LTD., VARADHALAKSHMI MILLS LT D. AND SITALAKSHMI MILLS LTD. V. CIT, REPORTED IN 241 ITR 545, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234D WOULD BE CHARGEABLE PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. M.P. NO. 117/MDS/12 3 4. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH GIVES THIS TRIB UNAL POWER TO EFFECT A RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER, READS AS UNDER :- 254(2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITH IN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER, WITH A VIEW TO RE CTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AMEND ANY ORDER P ASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1), AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMEN T IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. RULE 34A OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES 1963 READS AS UNDER:- 34A. (1) AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF TH E ACT SHALL CLEARLY AND CONCISELY STATE THE MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM THE RECORD OF WHICH THE RECTIFICATION IS SOUGHT. (2) EVERY APPLICATION MADE UNDER SUB-RULE (1) SHALL BE IN TRIPLICATE AND THE PROCEDURE FOR FILING OF APPEALS IN THESE RULES WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO SUCH APPLICATIONS. (3) THE BENCH WHICH HEARD THE MATTER GIVING RISE TO THE APPLICATION (UNLESS THE PRESIDENT, THE SENIOR VICE- PRESIDENT, THE VICE-PRESIDENT OR THE SENIOR MEMBER PRESENT AT THE STATION OTHERWISE DIRECTS) SHALL DISPOSE IT AFTER GIVING BO TH THE PARTIES TO THE APPLICATION A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD PROVIDED IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO POST MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR HEARING IF IT PRIMA FACIE APPEARS TO BE A PETITION FOR REVIEW. (4) AN ORDER DISPOSING OF AN APPLICATION, UNDER SUB -RULE (3), SHALL BE IN WRITING GIVING REASONS IN SUPPORT OF IT S DECISION. 6. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SUB-RULE (1) OF RULE 34A TH AT AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) HAS TO CLEARLY AND CONCISELY S TATE THE MISTAKE M.P. NO. 117/MDS/12 4 APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. A READING OF THE MISCELL ANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE DOES NOT MAKE OUT CLEARLY OR C ONCISELY WHAT WAS THE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL OTHER THA N SEEKING PRAYER FOR GIVING DIRECTION TO LEVY INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234 D OF THE ACT. UNLESS THE APPLICATION CLEARLY GIVES THE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER ON WHICH RECTIFICATION IS SOUGHT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS NOT HAVIN G ANY POWER TO GIVE SUCH DIRECTION. 7. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. 8. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, TH E 14 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (V. DURGA RAO) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/D.R./GUA RD FILE