SHRI SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, Indore V. The DCIT (CPC)-TDS GHAZIABAD UNDER JURISDICTION OF ITO TDS-II, Indore

MA 13/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4307 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA

Judgement Text

MA NOS.11 TO 14 OF 2016 NISHITCHEM PRODUCTS AND OTHERS 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NOS.11, 12, 13 & 14/IND/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.550, 543, 551 & 552/IND/201 4) A.YS. 2014-15, 2013-14, 2013-14 & 2013-14 1. NISHITCHEM PRODUCTS P. LTD., INDORE 2. S.S. INFRAESTATE (INDIA) P. LTD., INDORE 3. SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, INDORE 4. N.P. MISHRA INFRASTRUCTURES P. LTD., INDORE :: A PPELLANTS VS. DCIT, CPC-TDS, GHAZIABAD/ITO-TDS-II, INDORE :: RESP ONDENT ASSESSEES BY SHRI RAJESH MEHTA, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA, DR DATE OF HEARING 08.4.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06.5.2016 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED B Y THE ASSESSEES SEEKING RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE I .T. ACT IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS DATED 11.6.2015 & 24.6.2015. MA NOS.11 TO 14 OF 2016 NISHITCHEM PRODUCTS AND OTHERS 2 2. ASSESSEES HAVE CLAIMED THAT LATE FEE U/S 234E IS APPEALABLE AND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TPA, INDORE AND OTHERS VS. U.O.I. AND OTHERS DATED 07.12.2015. WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT IN THOSE APPEALS, THE INCO ME-TAX DEPARTMENT HAS PLACED ON RECORD A LETTER FROM THE ITO (TECH.) FOR CIT (TDS), BHOPAL TO STATE THAT SEC. 200 A OF THE I.T. ACT, THE AMENDMEN T HAS COME INTO EFFECT FROM 1.6.2015 AND IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICES ARE APPEA LABLE U/S 234E AND ON THAT BASIS, HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IMP UGNED ORDERS ARE APPEALABLE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO DIRECTED THAT DECISION OF ITAT IN CASE OF SANJAY KUMAR DWIVE DI AND OTHERS VS. CPS-TDS IN ITA NO.551/IND/2014 AND OTHERS WHERE APP EALS OF ASSESSEES ARE HELD TO BE NOT MAINTAINABLE U/S 234E SHALL NOT STAND IN THE WAY OF PETITIONERS. THUS, THE DECISION OF HONB LE HIGH COURT RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE PLEADING MAS IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT MATTERS. FIRST, DEPARTM ENT IS CONTESTING THAT ORDERS WERE NOT APPEALABLE. FURTHER, ALL THESE ORDE RS PERTAIN PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS LIMITED POWERS U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT AND ONLY MISTAKE OF ARITHMETICAL/CLERICA L NATURE CAN BE RECTIFIED. THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEES ARE TRYING TO GET THE ORDER REVIEWED, WHICH IS NOT PERM ISSIBLE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE POWERS OF REVIEW MUST BE CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE. REVIEW OF AN ORDER MEANS RE-EXAMINATION OR TO GIVE A SECON D VIEW OF THE MATTER MA NOS.11 TO 14 OF 2016 NISHITCHEM PRODUCTS AND OTHERS 3 FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALTERATION OR REVERSAL OF THE V IEW ALREADY TAKEN AFTER CHANGING THE EARLIER OPINION OR VIEW. THE ORDERS PA SSED BY THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(1) ARE SPEAKING AND EFFECTIVE ORDERS SO FAR AS THESE APPEALS ARE CONCERNED. REVIEWING OF ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/ S 254(2) OF THE ACT. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: KARAN & CO. (253 ITR 131) (DEL), NIRANJAN & CO. LTD. VS. ITAT (122 ITR 519) (CAL), CIT VS. ITAT (196 ITR 640) (ORI), CIT VS. SUMAN TEA & PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES P. LTD., 226 ITR 34 (CAL), 4. THE ASSESSEES HAVE NEITHER BEEN ABLE TO PINPOINT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL NOR THEY HAVE POINTED OUT ANY CLERICAL OR ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE. THESE MISCELLANEO US APPLICATIONS, FILED BY ASSESSEES, ARE IN-FACT AN ATTEMPT TO GET THE ORD ER REVIEWED. I.T.A.T. HAS NOT POWERS TO REVIEW ITS ORDER PASSED ON MERITS . IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, NO CASE IS M ADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEES THROUGH THEIR MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS, TH EREFORE, SAME ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.5.2016. SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 06.5.2016 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR