CRG Infratech Pvt.Ltd, Kolhapur V. Income tax Officer, Kolhapur

MA 158/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application by M/s. CRG Infratech Pvt. Ltd. concerning an earlier Tribunal decision on ITA No. 478/PUN/2021 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The original dispute involved the denial of deductions under section 80IA(4) of the Income-tax Act for two projects, Sarjapur and Benwad. The Tribunal had previously upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, leading to the dismissal of the assessee's appeal. In the Miscellaneous Application, the assessee sought rectification of the Tribunal's order, claiming an error. However, the Tribunal found no obvious or patent mistake in the record, citing various Supreme Court and High Court decisions that restrict rectification powers to obvious and patent mistakes.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124441 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2019
• Other Referred Cases: T.S. Balaram, I.T.O vs. M/s. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, ACIT Vs. Saurashtra kutch Stock Exchange Ld., CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 158/PUN/2022 Arising out of ITA No. 478/PUN/2021 : A.Y. 2013-14 M/s. CRG Infratech Pvt. Ltd. 221, G-15/1 Bagi Complex, Gadhinglaj, Dist. Kolhapur. PAN: AADCC9087F Applicant Vs. The I.T.O. Ward 2(1) Kolhapur Respondent Applicant by : Shri M.K. Kulkarni Respondent by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date of Hearing : 17-02-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20-02-2023 ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER This Misc. application preferred by the assessee emanates from order of the Tribunal in I. T.A. No. 478/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2013-14, order dated 04-09-2019. 2. We have perused the contents in the Misc. application. In this case, in the order of the Tribunal cross appeals were preferred by the Revenue in ITA No. 469/PUN/2017 and by the assessee in ITA No. 478/PUN/2017. The Tribunal in its order had upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A) by giving detailed reasoning and in the said order of the ld. CIT(A) out of 13 projects deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income- tax Act,1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was allowed for11 projects except the projects of Sarjapur and Benwad. The assessee filed cross appeal in ITA No. 478/PUN/2017 since the ld. CIT(A) did not provide deduction in respect of said two projects. Once the Tribunal had upheld the order of the ld. CIT(A), where the two projects of Sarjapur and Benwad were not granted deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act, 2 M.A. No. 158/PUN/2022 CRG Infrtecvh Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 in such scenario it was held that the cross appeal of the assessee pertaining to non-granting of deduction for projects at Sarjapur and Benwad becomes infructuous and hence it was dismissed. In the said order of the Tribunal both the appeals of the revenue as well as assessee were dismissed upholding the findings of the ld. CIT(A). In such scenario there is no mistake much less apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal which is the power and scope as mandated u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). There are series of decisions by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court as well as Hon‟ble High Courts expounding scope of exercising powers under section 254(2) of the Act. We do not deem it necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification under section 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions. For fortifying this view, we make reference to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, I.T.O vs. M/s. Volkart Brothers, Bombay (1971) 82 ITR 5 (SC) where it has been observed and held as under: A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long dawn process of reasoning on points on which thee my conceivably be two opinion”. 3. For further fortifying this view, we also make reference to the decision of the Hon‟ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra kutch Stock Exchange Ld., 262 ITR 146 which has been upheld by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reported in 305 ITR 227. 4. The Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company reported as 203 ITR 497 has held that the scope of section 3 M.A. No. 158/PUN/2022 CRG Infrtecvh Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 rectification in error of judgment. The relevant observation of the Hon‟ble High Court are as under: The Tribunal cannot, in exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from the record itself.” 5. We are of considered view that in the guise of rectification, the assessee is seeking review of the order of Tribunal, which is beyond the scope of powers as envisaged u/s 24(2) of the Act. 6. In view of the above and as per the Miscellaneous application filed before us, we do not find any mistake, much less apparent from record that warrants rectification in the order of Tribunal dated 04-09-2019. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 7. In the result, Misc. Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 20 th day of Feb. 2023. Sd/- sd/- (R.S. SYAL) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) VICE PESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune; dated the 20 th day of February 2023. Ankam Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-2 Kolhapur Pune 4. The Pr. CIT – 2 Kolhapur 5. D.R. ITAT „B‟ Bench 5. Guard File BY ORDER, Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Pune. /// TRUE COPY /// 4 M.A. No. 158/PUN/2022 CRG Infrtecvh Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2013-14 Date 1 Draft dictated on 20-02-2023 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 20-02-2023 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 20-02-2023 Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order 20-02-2023 Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 20-02-2023 Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order