UIFMC Ltd, V. ACIT CC-9, New Delhi

MA 156/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7385 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL MISHRA
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : FRIDAY NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NOS. 156,157/DEL/2011 (IN IT(SS) NOS. 147/DEL/07, 241/DEL/05) BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1990 TO 14.2. 2001 UIFMC LTD. 6-30, 31, & 32, OPP. IDPL R & D CENTRE, BALANAGAR, HYDERABAD 500 037 PAN AAACU0309E VS. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 9, NEW DELHI. APPELLANT BY: SMT. INDRA BANSAL, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SAHIL MISHRA, DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM : THE PRESENT TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE DIR ECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE POINTING OUT APPARENT ERRO RS IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 PASSED IN IT (SS) NO. 147/D/2007 AND 241/D/2005. FIRST WE TAKE MA NO. 156/DEL/11 MA NOS. 156,157/DEL/2011 BLOCK PERIOD 1. 4.1990 TO 14.2.2001 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT IT HAD RAISED GROU ND NO. 2 IN ITS APPEAL CHALLENGING CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF `.22 LACS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS TRADING AND FORWARDING EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS DISPOSED OFF THIS GROUND IN PARAGRAPH NO. 6.2 A ND 6.3 OF THE ORDER. TRIBUNAL HAS PUT RELIANCE UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI VINEET BHARGAVA. HOWEVER, SHRI VINEET BHARGAVA HAS NOT MENTIONED THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND THUS TRIBUNAL HA S ERRED IN APPRECIATING HIS STATEMENT. THE NEXT MISTAKE POINTE D OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN GROUND NO. 3 & 4, ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED ADDITION OF `. 6,84,22,895/- WHICH WAS M ADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT BALANCE OUTSTANDING IN THE NAME OF ONE OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS NAMELY M/S. SMRITI SALES (P ) LTD. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT TRIBUNAL CONCUR WITH THE FINDING O F LD. CIT(A), ON THIS ISSUE AND OBSERVED THAT LD. REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES HAVE BASED THEIR FINDING ON THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE AV AILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT AS SESSEES MANUFACTURING AND TRADING ACTIVITIES HAVE NOT BEEN TREATED AS NON GENUINE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE, COMMITTED AN APPARENT ERROR. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REL IED UPON HER APPLICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED TH AT THERE ARE MA NOS. 156,157/DEL/2011 BLOCK PERIOD 1. 4.1990 TO 14.2.2001 3 NO APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE GARB OF APPARENT ERROR. THE ASSESSEE WANTS THAT ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL BE REVIEWED. 3. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE POWER OF RECTIFIC ATION U/S 254 (2) CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE, WHIC H IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES T O BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPI NION. THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IS RUNNING INTO EIGHT PAGES. BASICALLY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON T HE STRENGTH OF HER APPLICATION TRIED TO PERSUADE US THAT TRIBUN AL FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EVIDENCE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND HA D ARRIVED ON WRONG CONCLUSIONS. IN OUR OPINION, THESE ISSUES ARE NOT IN THE SCOPE OF AN APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT. THERE ARE NO APPARENT ERRORS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS D EVOID OF ANY MERIT, IT IS REJECTED. MA NO. 157/D/2011 MA NOS. 156,157/DEL/2011 BLOCK PERIOD 1. 4.1990 TO 14.2.2001 4 4. ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED DELETION OF `. 2,65,01,000/- WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY T HE TRIBUNAL IN PARAGRAPH 3.2 TO 3.6 OF THE ORDER. SHE POINTED O UT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED ERROR BY REMITTING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR READJUDICATION. IN THE LIGHT OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS 260 CTR 185 WHEREIN SLP WAS DISMISSED. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO HAVE NOT REMITTED THIS ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE, ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL BE RECALLED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR POINTED OUT THA T ASSESSEE FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF T HE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN RUNNING INTO SEVEN PAGES FOR APPRISING AN APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. AT THE COST OF REPETITION WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT POWER OF RECTIFICATION U /S 254 (2) CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE MA NOS. 156,157/DEL/2011 BLOCK PERIOD 1. 4.1990 TO 14.2.2001 5 RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES T O BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS O F REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. THE ATTEMPT OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF THE SE APPLICATIONS IS TO GET THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED OR REVIEWED. OTHERWISE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PIN POINT AN Y APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. TAKING INTO CON SIDERATION THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT I N BOTH THE APPLICATIONS, THEY ARE REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2.12.2011. SD/- SD/- [K.D. RANJAN] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 2.12.2011 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITA T