Commissioner of Income-tax - IV, Pune V. Shri Sham V Chavan, Pune

MA 135/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1210 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKUNDRAJ M CHATE
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.135/PN/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.673/PN/2012) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IV, PUNE . APPELLANT VS. SHAM V. CHAVAN, FLAT NO. 302, HARSHWARDHAN APARTMENTS, SAHAKAR NAGAR, PARVATI, PUNE 411 009 PAN : AAQPC9426J . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MR. MUKUNDRAJ M. CHATE RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 11-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-10-2013 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT) SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL DATED 29.04.2013 (SUPRA). 2. BY WAY OF THE PRESENT PETITION, THE REVENUE HAS PRAYED TO WITHDRAW THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DAT ED 29.04.2013 (SUPRA) RELATING TO REFUND OF TRIBUNAL FEE. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE PETITION A ND HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE FIND THAT THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE PRESENT PETITION IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AS THE PRESENT PETITION ENTAILS A REVIEW OF ITS OWN ORDER BY THE T RIBUNAL. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER SO AS TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD AND SUCH A POWER OF RECTIFI CATION DOES NOT ENVISAGE A POWER OF REVIEW. MA NO.135/PN/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 4. APART THEREFROM, THE ASSERTION IN THE IMPUGNED P ETITION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE REFUND OF TRIBUNAL FEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY MERELY RELYING ON AN EARLIER ORDER OF THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KIRANJIT SINGH VS. ACIT (2006) 101 ITJ 424 (ARS.) IS NOT A C ORRECT POSITION. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE AFORESAID DECISION; WHEREAS, IN OPE RATIVE PART OF THE ORDER, CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HEL D ENTITLED TO REFUND OF THE TRIBUNAL FEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL FILED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE CITIV, PUNE UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT WAS NON-M AINTAINABLE, AS THE STATED ORDER OF THE CIT-IV, PUNE WAS NOT ONE OF THE APPEALABLE ORDERS AS PER SECTION 253(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE BASIS OF MOVING THE PRESENT PETITION BY THE REVENUE, IN OUR VIEW, IS ALSO MISCONCEIVED. 5. IN THE RESULT, WE DISMISS THE PRAYER OF THE REVE NUE FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS. 6. RESULTANTLY, THE CAPTIONED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TION OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED, AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE P RESENCE OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AT THE CONCLUSION OF TH E HEARING ON 11 TH OCTOBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 11 TH OCTOBER, 2013 SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT IV, PUNE; 4) THE DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 5) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., PUNE