M/s. Shruti Fastners Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

MA 153/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8023 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S NEGI
• Assessee Lawyers: O P SAPRA
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

MA NO. 153/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH FRIDAY F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 153/DEL/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 (IN I.T.A. NO. 4219/DEL/2010) M/S SHRUTI FASTNERS LTD., C/O O.P. SAPRA & ASSOCIATES, C-763, NEW FRIENDS COLONY, NEW DELHI 110 0025 (PAN/GIR NO. : AAACS2175H) VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSEESSEE BY : SH. O.P. SAPRA, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SH. R.S. NEGI, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER SHAMIM YAHYA : AM SHAMIM YAHYA : AM SHAMIM YAHYA : AM SHAMIM YAHYA : AM BY WAY OF THIS MISC. APPLICATION ASSESSEE SEEKS REC TIFICATION OF MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 421 9/DEL/2010 DATED 31.3.2011. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COUNSEL HAS MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO FILED SYNOPSIS. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL O F THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE SUBMISSIONS AND SYNOPSIS WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. MA NO. 153/DEL/2011 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS ON THIS ISSUE. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED AN ORDER AFTER NOTING THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PE RUSED THE RECORDS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONCLUDED IN PARA 5 AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT SURVEY TEM HAS DONE THE VALUATION @ 191.60. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE RATE OF 59.48 FOR VALUATION OF THE INVENTORY. THIS RELATES TO THE I TEM WHICH HAD THE MAXIMUM RATE. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CAN BE APPLIED, WITHOUT FINDING ANY RELATIONSHIP OF THIS RATE WITH THE IMPUGNED ITEM. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GIVEN THE FINDING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE MAXIMU M RATE AS GIVEN IN SL. NO. 96 OF THE 3 RD INVENTORY. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT IN INVENTORY. HE HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE ON THE DATE OF SUR VEY AND TRIED TO RECONCILE THE SAME AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THREE YEARS AND THREE MONTH S. MA NO. 153/DEL/2011 3 HE HAS FOUND THAT THIS IS A VERY QUESTIONABLE PROCE SS. HE HAS NOTED THAT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THERE WAS DISCREPANCY QUANTITY WISE IN THE INVENTORY AND THE SAID MATTER HAS NOT BEEN REFUTED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE HIM. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT ESTIMATE IS NEEDED TO BE MADE WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED ` 59.4 8 RATE. ASSESSEE OFFERED ` 33.56 PER METER. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PROCEEDED TO APPLY THE RATE OF 37.96. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPI NION IN ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCES ESTIMATE IS INEVITABL E ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS MADE A REASONABLE ORDER, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART. ACCORDINGL Y, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3. NOW WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING A REVI EW OF THE ORDER IN THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE, WHICH IS NOT P ERMISSIBLE. UNDER MA NO. 153/DEL/2011 4 THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THIS MISC. APPLICATIO N IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS DI SMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/5/2011. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN A.D. JAIN] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 11/5/2011 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, A.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCHES