Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Nashik V. Ukay Metal Industries Pvt.Ltd, Nashik

MA 143/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue against the Tribunal's earlier decision in favor of M/s Ukay Metal Industries Pvt Ltd, which had allowed the assessee's appeal. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal had erred in not considering the Supreme Court's decision in 'MAK DATA (P) Ltd. Vs CIT' while allowing the appeal. The Tribunal, however, clarified that the scope of a MA under Section 254(2) is limited to rectifying glaring, apparent, patent, or obvious mistakes and does not extend to reviewing or re-adjudicating issues afresh. The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court's decision in 'CIT Vs Ramesh Electric and Trading Co.' to emphasize that it cannot reappreciate evidence or review its findings under the guise of a MA.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136234 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2019
• Other Referred Cases: MAK DATA (P) Ltd. Vs CIT, CIT Vs Ramesh Electric and Trading Co.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे “ए” न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / MA No.143/PUN/2022 Arising out of ITA No.2554/PUN/2016 धििाारणवर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Applicant बिाम / V/s M/s Ukay Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. F-139, Ambad, MIDC, Nashik - 422010 PAN: AAACU1575F . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri Ramnath Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 17/02/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 17/02/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present Miscellaneous Application [for short “MA”] of the Revenue sought our indulgence for recalling the order of this Tribunal passed u/s 254(1) of the Act while disposing off the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 2554/PUN/2016 dt. 26/06/2019. M/s Ukay Metal Industries Pvt Ltd MA No. 143/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.2554/PUN/2016) ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4 2. On a perusal of aforesaid MA, it transpired that, the revenue-applicant vide para 4 thereof alleged that, the Tribunal has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on a legal-cum-technical ground by not considering the ratio laid by Hon’ble Apex Court in “MAK DATA (P) Ltd. Vs CIT” reported in 38 taxman 448 (SC). 3. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short “ITAT, Rules”] perused the material placed on records and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position forewarned to either parties. 4. After having given a thoughtful consideration to the present MA, we are unable to comprehend the very basis on which the same has been filed before us. Apropos, seeking our indulgence for adjudicating the matter once again on merits, we find it absolutely beyond our power as to on what basis the same could be done in the garb of MA and we, say so for the M/s Ukay Metal Industries Pvt Ltd MA No. 143/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.2554/PUN/2016) ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4 reason that, the scope of an application filed under sub-section (2) of Section 254 of the Act is confined to rectification by the Tribunal of a mistake which is glaring, apparent, patent or obvious from the record, and not for the purpose of reviewing its own order or re-adjudicating certain issues afresh. In fact, we would not hesitate in observing that the department in the garb of the present MA is trying to seek our indulgence for re-adjudicating the settled issue on merits, which, it had failed to raise in the course of the original appellate proceedings. 5. In this context, it shall be pertinent to quote the decision rendered by Hon’ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in “CIT Vs Ramesh Electric and Trading Co.” reported in 203 ITR 497, whereby their lordships in a similar facts and circumstance, have categorically held that, “tribunal can only rectify the alleged mistakes which are apparent from record and cannot reappreciate the evidence and review its findings. . . ” M/s Ukay Metal Industries Pvt Ltd MA No. 143/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.2554/PUN/2016) ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4 6. Considering our aforesaid observation, we are of the view that, the present MA filed by the revenue u/s 254(2) of the Act being devoid and bereft of any merit deserves dismissal. Since the Revenue failed to bring out to our notice any rectifiable mistake apparent from record which can indeed be rectified u/s 254(2) of the Act, we have no hesitation in dismissing the present MA of the revenue. 7. Resultantly, the miscellaneous application of the revenue is DISMISSED. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Friday 17 th day of February, 2023. -S/d- -S/d- PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHARY G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ PUNE ; ददनाांक / Dated : 17 th day of February, 2023. आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधर्ि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The PCIT-1, Nashik (MH-India) 4. The CIT-1, Nashik (MH-India) 5. DR, ITAT, Pune Bench ‘B’, Pune 6.गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.