The ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad V. Rajeshri Avas Developers Pvt Ltd., Ahmedabad

MA 148/AHD/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4804 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद ᭠यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. No(s) MA/ITA No(s) Asset. Year(s) Appeal(s) by Appellant vs. Respondent Appellant Respondent 1. M.A No.148/Ahd/2021 in ITA No.1105/Ahd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax officer, Ward 3(1)(3), Ahmedabad. Rajeshri Avas Developers Pvt. Ltd., A-9. Anupam Colony, Opp. Chirag Diamond, L.B.S. Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad-382350. PAN: AAACR9139G 2. M.A No.152/Ahd/2021 in ITA No.1106/Ahd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax officer, Ward 3(1)(3), Ahmedabad. Rachna Organisers Pvt. Ltd., A-9. Anupam Colony, Opp. Chirag Diamond, L.B.S. Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad-382350. PAN: AADCR9047A 3. M.A No.153/Ahd/2021 in ITA No.1107/Ahd/2018 2013-14 Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad. Pooja Infrastructure Ltd., A-9. Anupam Colony, Opp. Chirag Diamond, L.B.S. Road, Bapunagar, Ahmedabad-382350. PAN: AADCP5123D M.A No.148/Ahd/2021 in ITA No.1105/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 (with two others) (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R Assessee by : Shri M.K. Patel, A.R सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 01/04/2022 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 08/04/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The Revenue by way of this Miscellaneous Applications is seeking to recall the combined order dated 06/08/2021 passed by the ITAT in ITA No. 1105/Ahd/2018 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on the reasoning that there is an apparent mistake in the order of the ITAT. 2. At the time of hearing it was noticed that the Revenue in the Miscellaneous Application running into 11 pages has highlighted lot of facts involved in the dispute which is available on record. However, it was noticed that the Revenue nowhere in the Miscellaneous Application has pointed out any mistake apparent from the record which requires to be rectified under the provision of section 254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, a question was posed to the Ld. DR to point out the mistake apparent from the record in the order of the ITAT. But the Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue failed to point out the mistake being apparent from the record in the order of the ITAT. Conversely, the Ld. DR sought some more time to get the necessary instruction from the higher authorities. 3. On the other hand, the Ld. AR vehemently supported the order of the ITAT. 4. Heard the rival contention of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The scope of the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act is limited to the extent of the mistakes which are apparent from record. The question arise what should be called as mistake apparent from record. In this regard we note M.A No.148/Ahd/2021 in ITA No.1105/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 (with two others) that various Hon’ble Courts including the Hon’ble supreme court in number of cases, particularly, in the landmark judgment of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmed Ishaque AIR 1955 SC 233 has defined the term the mistake apparent from record as a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or arguments to establish it. These kind of mistakes can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record which can be corrected while exercising jurisdiction. Thus an error cannot be said to be apparent on the face of the record if one has to travel beyond the record to see whether the judgment is correct or not. An error apparent on the face of the record means an error which strikes on mere looking and does not need long drawn out process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 4.1 In the given facts and circumstances the Ld. DR has not pointed out any mistake in the order of the ITAT neither there is any specific apparent mistake pointed out in the Miscellaneous Application preferred by the Revenue. 4.2 On the previous day of hearing, the Revenue was given the last opportunity to place its point of contention but despite that the Revenue could not point out any mistake being apparent from the record. Accordingly, the prayer of the Ld. DR for seeking some more time was rejected. 4.3 In the absence of any mistake being apparent from the record, pointed out in the Miscellaneous Application, we do not find any merit in the present Miscellaneous Application. Hence the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. 4.4 In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Coming to the M.A. No. 152/Ahd/2021 in ITA No. 1106/AHD/2018 for AY 2013-14 in the case of Rachna Organisers Pvt. Ltd. M.A No.148/Ahd/2021 in ITA No.1105/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 (with two others) 5. At the outset, we note that similar issue was raised by the Revenue in the case of Rajeshri Avas Developers Pvt. Ltd. bearing MA No. 148/Ahd/2021 in ITA No. 1105/Ahd/2018 corresponding to A.Y. 2013-14 which has been decided in favour of assessee and against the Revenue vide paragraph No. 4 of this order. For detailed discussion please refer the above mentioned paragraph number of this order. Accordingly we hold that finding given in above paragraphs with regard to M.A No.148/Ahd/2021 in ITA No.1105/Ahd/2018 will mutatis mutandis apply here in this case also. 5.1 In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Coming to the M.A. No.153/Ahd/2021 in ITA No.1107/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2013- 14 in the case of Pooja Infrastructure Ltd. 6. At the outset, we note that similar issue was raised by the Revenue in the case of Rajeshri Avas Developers Pvt. Ltd. bearing MA No.148/Ahd/2021 in ITA No. 1105/Ahd/2018 corresponding to AY 2013-14 which has been decided in favour of assessee and against the Revenue vide paragraph No. 4 of this order. For detailed discussion please refer the above mentioned paragraph number of this order. Accordingly we hold that finding given in above paragraphs with regard to ITA No.1105/Ahd/2018 will mutatis mutandis apply here in this case also. 7. In the combined results, all the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 08/04/2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 08/04/2022 Manish