CENZER INDUSTRIES P. LTD, V. ITO 5(1)(3),

MA 13/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1182 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARESH SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: O P SINGH

Judgement Text

C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI .. , !'# $ $ $ $ %$ $; ' !'# !( BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM %$%$ $') 13 TO 15 /MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF MA NO. 349 TO 351/M/2011 ( ') / $0/ ') / $0/ ') / $0/ ') / $0/ / / / / ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2000-01) M/S CENZER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, 20-B, SUGRA BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, 16 TH TRIBHUVAN ROAD, MUMBAI 400 004. ) ) ) ) / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 5(1)(3), MUMBAI. #2 !./ PAN :AAACJ1478Q (APPLICANT) .. RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHRI PARESH SHAH ASSESSEE BY : SHRI O.P. SINGH !)$ 3 / // / DATE OF HEARING : 11-10-2013 450 3 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-10-2013 '6 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : BY THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKIN G RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 2-12-2011 PASSED IN MISC. APPLICATIONS NO. 3 49 TO 351/MUM/2011. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING BY WAY OF THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS IS RECTIFICATION OF THE OR DER DATED 2-12-2011 WHEREBY THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WERE DISPOSED OF. AS HELD BY THE HONBLE ORISSA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRESIDENT, ITAT AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (1992) 196 ITR 838 (OR I), TO ATTRACT THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 254(2), THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE R ECTIFIED MUST BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND THE SAME MUST BE IN THE ORDER PASSED UN DER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 254 WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL FILED EITHER BY THE A SSESSEE OR REVENUE AND AN ORDER MA 13 TO 15/MUM/2012 2 REJECTING AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SE CTION 254(2) IS NOT AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER S ECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE ORISSA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRESIDENT, ITAT AND ANOTHER (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT T HESE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. THE SAME ARE ACCORD INGLY DISMISSED. . 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH OCTOBER, 2013. . . '6 3 450 7')8 11-10-2013 5 3 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) ( P.M. JAGTAP ) !'# / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' !'# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 7') DATED 1 9-10-2013 .').!./ RK SR. PS '6 3 ?'@% A%0 '6 3 ?'@% A%0 '6 3 ?'@% A%0 '6 3 ?'@% A%0/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 2B / THE APPELLANT 2. ?C2B / THE RESPONDENT. 3. D () / THE CIT(A)- MUMBAI CONCERNED 4. D / CIT MUMBAI CONCERNED 5. %$G ?'') , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI D BENCH 6. H/ I / GUARD FILE. '6)! '6)! '6)! '6)! / BY ORDER, !C% ?' //TRUE COPY// J J J J/ // /!K !K !K !K ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI