M/S. CENZER INDUSTRIES LTD., V. ACIT 5(1),

MA 127/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6434 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VANDANA SAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PARESH SHAH
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVA N, JM M.A.NOS.86 & 127/MUM/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.3732 & 3738/MUM/2007 : A.YS 1999-2000 & 2000-2001) M/S.CENZER INDUSTRIES LIMITED 208 SUGRA BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR 16 TH TRIBHAVAN ROAD MUMBAI 400 004. PAN : AABCC4342F. VS. THE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 5(1) MUMBAI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI PARESH SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SMT. VANDANA SAGAR O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN MOVE D BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 05.06.2009 AND 29.05.2009 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 3731/M/2007 AND 3732-33/M/2007 IN RELATION TO T HE A.YS. 1998-99 TO 2000-01 PASSED U/S.254(1) OF THE ACT, ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ISSUE REGARDING SEC.147 WAS NOT DISCUSSED AND DISPOSED OFF BY THE TRIBUNAL. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSE D BY THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS NOTICED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE RAISED GROUND CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER FORM NO. 36, BUT DID NOT PRESS I T DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. AS A RESULT OF WHICH, IT WAS D ISMISSED, AS IS APPARENT FROM PAGE 1 PARA 2 OF THE ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 1998-99 THA T THE GROUND WAS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY, THE LEARNED A.R. CONTENDED THAT THOUGH AT THAT TIME ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS SUCH GRO UND, BUT THE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ORDERS, LED TO IT TAKING UP THIS GROUND. WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDERS BE MA NOS.86 & 127/MUM/2011 M/S.CENZER INDUSTRIES LIMITED. 2 RECALLED FOR ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO RE-ARGUE THE GROUND CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE SCOPE OF PROCEEDIN GS U/S.254(2) IS CONFINED TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IF A G ROUND IS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE CANNO T COME UP ARGUING FOR THE PRESSING OF THIS GROUND BY WAY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.2 54(2). IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THERE IS NO MISTAKE MUCH LESS THE MISTAKE A PPARENT FROM RECORD REQUIRING ANY RECTIFICATION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 3. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI : 29 TH APRIL, 2011. DEVDAS* COPY TO : 1. THE APPLICANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) V, MUMBAI. 5. THE DR/ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.