M/s Pensol Industries Ltd., Indore V. The ACIT 1(2), Indore

MA 137/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0278 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N AGARWAL
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : AABCP2022M M.A.NO.137/IND/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 137/IND/2012) A.Y. : 2003 - 04 M/S. PENSOL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, ACIT, 1(2), 307, CLASSIC CENTRE, VS INDORE 575, M. G. ROAD, INDORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. AGARWAL, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 . 0 3 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 . 0 4 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER PASSED BY I.T.A.T. DATED 25.10.2012. 2. THROUGH THIS PETITION, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPROVING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING -: 2: - 2 OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 20 LAKHS U/S 68 IN RES PECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COUR SE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ASKED FROM THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND THE SAME WAS DULY FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THEREFORE, REOPENING WAS NOT JUST IFIED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SENIOR DR CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, W HICH COULD BE RECTIFIED U/S 154(2) OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MISC. APPLICATION AS WELL AS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.10.2012. IN THIS ORDER, BOTH THE LEGAL ISSUES AND MERIT OF ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH ELABORA TELY. AFTER DISCUSSING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, THE TRIBUNAL C AME TO CONCLUSION THAT REOPENING WAS JUSTIFIED AND THE ADD ITION SO MADE U/S 68 WERE AS PER MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CON TENTIONS RAISED IN THE MISC. PETITION AMOUNTS TO CHANGE IN C ONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER PASSED ON 2 5.10.2012. -: 3: - 3 FOR WHICH THERE IS NO AUTHORITY U/S 254(2). ONLY MI STAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2). A NY MATTER WHICH IS DEBATABLE OR REQUIRES LONG PROCESS OF REAS ONING CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER THE GARB OF APPARENT MIST AKE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST APRIL, 2013. SD/ - SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 1 ST APRIL, 2013. CPU* 1.4