Maruthi Ceramics P. Ltd., Warangal, Hyderabad V. DCIT, Circle-1, Warangal, Hyderabad

MA 13/HYD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4503 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G N RAGHAVENDRA RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMA RAO

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 13/HYD/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1496/HYD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 MARUTHI CERAMICS PVT. LTD., WARANGAL [PAN: AABCM3713C] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, WARANGAL (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI S. RAMA RAO, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI G.N. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, DR DATE OF HEARING : 13-05-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-07-2016 O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE AG AINST THE ORDER OF ITAT IN ITA NO. 1496/HYD/2013 DT. 04-09-201 5. THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE VARIATION IN THE TURNOVER DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE IN THE P&L A/C AND THE TURNOVER DETERMINED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. M.A. NO.13/HYD/2016 MARUTHI CERAMICS PVT. LTD., :- 2 -: 2. ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED BY WAY OF RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, THE TURNOVER IS AS UNDER: DESCRIPTION RS. TURNOVER DETERMI NED BY SALES TAX AUTHORITIES 1,66,66,050 LESS: I. VALUE OF FIRE WOOD (BEING PURCHASED) II. PACKING MATERIAL (SHOWN AS OTHER INCOME IN BOOKS) III. APGST (AS SEPARATE ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED AND THE BALANCE PAYABLE/OUTSTANDING WAS SHOWN AS PROVISIONS IN BALANCE SHEET) IV. CST (FOR THE SAME REASONS AS ABOVE) 5,91,140 68,915 5,03,441 1,70,070 TURNOVER SHOULD BE 1,53,32,484 TURNOVER SHOWN IN P&L ACCOUNT IS RS. 1,53,37,105 THE DIFFERENCE WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. THE AO AND THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. BEFORE THE ITAT, THE SAME SU BMISSIONS WERE REITERATED. THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER, ACCEPTED THE PETITIONERS CONTENTION WITH REGARD TO THE VALUE OF FIREWOOD AND THE PACKING MATERIAL, WHEREAS THE CONTENTION WITH REGARD TO APGST A ND CST WERE NOT ACCEPTED VIDE PARA 7 OF THE ORDER. M.A. NO.13/HYD/2016 MARUTHI CERAMICS PVT. LTD., :- 3 -: 4. IT WAS THE CONTENTION IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N THAT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT COLLECTED TOWARDS AP GST AND CST, THE TURNOVER AMOUNTS TO RS. 1,53,37,105/- AND BY INCLUDING THE ABOVE APGST AND CST, THE AGGREGATE TURNOVER AMOUNTS TO RS. 1,60,10,616/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT IN MENTIONING THAT THE TURNOVER DE TERMINED BY THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN APGST AND CST. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TURNOVER AS PER THE SALES TAX ORDE R INCLUDES THE AMOUNTS COLLECTED TOWARDS APGST AND CST A ND THESE WERE ACCOUNTED SEPARATELY BY ASSESSEE. ON THIS BACKG ROUND, ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE OBSERVATI ONS MADE BY THE ITAT WHICH REQUIRED A RECTIFICATION U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS, WHEREAS LD. DR STATED THAT THERE IS NO ERROR. 5. ON CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER, WE ARE OF TH E OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2). THE ITAT HAS CONSCIOUSLY STATED THERE IN THE ORDER THAT THE TURNOVER DETERMINED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES DOES NOT INCLUDE APGST AND CST, WHEREAS IT HAS EXCLUDED FIREW OOD AND PACKING MATERIAL CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE. SINCE THE ITAT HAS EXAMINED THE FACTS AND MODIFIED THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT(A) TO CERTAIN EXTENT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE RECTIFICATION SOUGHT BY ASSESSEE WOULD AMOUNT TO RECONS IDERING THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE ITAT, WHICH DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 254(2). ITAT HAS NO POWER OF REV IEW AND THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION SEEKING MODIFICATION OF THE ORDER CANNOT M.A. NO.13/HYD/2016 MARUTHI CERAMICS PVT. LTD., :- 4 -: BE ENTERTAINED. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS TO BE CONSIDERED U/S. 254(2). 6. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06 TH JULY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER HYDERABAD, DATED 06 TH JULY, 2016 TNMM COPY TO : 1. M/S. MARUTHI CERAMICS PVT. LTD., HANAMKONDA, WARANGAL. 2. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-I, WARANG AL. 3. CIT (APPEALS)-18, MUMBAI (HAVING CONCURRENT JURI SDICTION OVER CIT(A)-VI, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT (APPEALS)-VI, HYDERABAD. 5. CIT-5/6, HYDERABAD. 6. D.R. ITAT, HYDERABAD. 7. GUARD FILE.