M/s The Adoni Press Company Pvt Limited , Bellary V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1 , Bellary

MA 119/BANG/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Adoni Press Company Private Limited, which filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking rectification of an earlier Tribunal order. The application was based on the claim that commission paid to directors, amounting to Rs.20,50,240, was erroneously added twice - once during the computation of capital gains and again while calculating income from business. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Bellary, was the respondent. The Tribunal, after hearing arguments from both sides, decided that the issues raised in the application did not constitute mistakes apparent from the record and thus dismissed the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115212 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Reliance Telecom Limited (2022) 440 ITR 1 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “A”, BANGALORE Before Smt.Beena Pillai, JM & Shri Laxmi Praad Sahu, AM MA No.119/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2014-2015 (Arising out of ITA No.1983/Bang/2018) M/s.Adoni Press Company Private Limited, Door No.117, Ward No.XVI, Ananthpur Road Bellary – 583 101. PAN : AABCA 5117E. v. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Bellary. (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by : Sri.Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP Respondent by : Sri.K.Sankar Ganesh, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 02.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 05. 01.2023 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, AM : By this miscellaneous application, the assessee is seeking to rectify certain mistakes apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal dated 02.08.2022 in ITA No.1983/Bang/2018, for the assessment year 2014-2015. The rectification sought for by the assessee vide application dated 12.10.2022, reads as under :- MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 2 MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 3 MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 4 MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 5 MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 6 3. The learned AR submitted that there is mistake apparent from record in the order passed by the Tribunal and it should be rectified. The learned AR also submitted that the commission paid to the Directors amounting to Rs.20,50,240 has been twice added, once at the time of computation of capital gain and again while calculating income from business, by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the order should be recalled. 4. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the Tribunal has rightly passed the order and there is no mistake apparent from record as per the observations from the order of the MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 7 authorities below. Therefore, the learned DR objected for the recalling of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the entire material available on record and the orders of the authorities below. We noted from the arguments from both sides and on merits of the case as pointed out by the assessee, we do not find any merit on the submission of the learned AR, as he could not point out any mistake on the merits of the case. We further noted that during the course of argument, the learned AR has raised a new issue in regard to double disallowance of commission paid to the Directors, which is not part of the ground of appeal originally taken by the assessee for adjudication. Therefore, we cannot give our decision on this count. Since we have remitted the case to the files of the A.O. for de novo consideration, the A.O. will decide the issue as per law. In this context, we rely on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Telecom Limited (2022) 440 ITR 1 (SC). The Hon’ble Apex Court held that while considering the application under section 254(2) of the I.T.Act, the Tribunal is not required to re-visit its earlier order and to go into detail on merits. The powers under section 254(2) of the Act are only to rectify/correct any mistake apparent from the record. In the present case, the conscious view taken by the Tribunal would not fall under the category of mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, the alleged mistakes pointed out in the petition would not fall under the category of mistakes apparent from record u/s MA No.96/Bang/2022 Sri Baidoddi Eshappa. 8 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the petition filed by the assessee. 6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 05 th day of January, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Beena Pillai) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore; Dated : 05 th January, 2023. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Applicant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The PCIT, Hubli 4. The Pr.CIT, Bangalore. 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru. 6. Guard File. Asst.Registrar/ITAT, Bangalore