M/s M.K. Auto Clutch Industries, Kala Amb V. Addl. CIT, Solan

MA 14/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6732 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K S BAINS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.14/CHD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 1018/CHD/2009) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) M/S M.K. AUTO CLUTCH INDUSTRIES, VS THE ADDL. CIT, KALA AMB, DISTT. SIRMOUR, H.P. SOLAN RANGE, SOLA N (H.P.). PAN : AAMFM0902H (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.S. BAINS DATE OF HEARING : 20.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.06.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE PLEADING THEREIN THAT A MISTA KE APPARENT ON RECORD HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.12.2015, PASSED IN ITA NO.1018/CHD/2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.35 LACS DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED THE SAI D AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN P LEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE, OTHERWISE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF THE SAID INCOME U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALLIED INDUSTRIES (2010) 229 CTR 462 (HP). 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. A PERUSAL O F THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. T HE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS APPLICATION WANTS TO RE-AGITA TE THE MATTER/ISSUE WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY WAY OF SPEAKING ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING TH E MAIN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TR IBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE ARE GIVEN IN PARAS 10 TO 12 OF THE OR DER DATED 21.12.2015, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTAB LISHED THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE SURRENDERED INCOME WITH THE INCOME FROM THE ELIGIBLE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, AN D THERE WAS NO PRESUMPTION THAT THE SURRENDER MADE ON ACCOU NT OF DISCREPANCY FOUND IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REPRESENTE D THE INCOME DERIVED FROM INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING. THE TRI BUNAL WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJ AB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUDOR KNITTING WO RKS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2014) 360 ITR 453 (P&H) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH O N MERITS AND IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY GRIEVANCE AGAINS T THE SAID ORDER, PROPER COURSE FOR THE ASSESSEE IS TO FI LE APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGHER AUTHORITY SUBJECT TO LIMITATION P ERIOD PRESCRIBED FOR THE SAME. 3. THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE LD. A.R. ARE NOT RELATING TO ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE O RDER. THE LD. A.R. HAS SOUGHT TO REARGUE THE CASE ON MERI TS WHICH CANNOT BE DONE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254( 2) OF THE 3 ACT. TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDERS. I F THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORD ER, PROPER COURSE TO AGITATE THE SAME IS BY FILING A N APPEAL BEFORE THE NEXT APPELLATE AUTHORITY I.E. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, BUT, NOT WITH THE PRESENT APPLICATION U NDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE IMPU GNED ORDER, HAS NOT ONLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE BUT HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING ON ALL OF THE ISSUES WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RAMES H ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. 1993 203 ITR 497 (BOM.), WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF T. S. BALARAM, ITO V. VOLKART BROTHERS [1971] 82 ITR 50 AND FURTHER RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT; MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH R EQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PRO CESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. FAILURE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN AR GUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSI ON IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 254(2) T O PASS THE SECOND ORDER. 4 4. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND THE LEGAL POSITION AS STATED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPLICATION AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY HEREBY DISM ISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.06.2018. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 18 JUNE, 2018 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH