Sugam Securities Pvt Ltd., Kolkata V. D.C.I.T. CC - VII,Kol., Kolkata

MA 165/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1483 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

MA NOS.165-167 & 168-172/KOL/12 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : BENCH A : KOLKATA [ BEFORE HON. SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER & HON. SHRI GEO RGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] MISC. APPLICATION NOS. 165/KOL/2012 TO 167/KOL/2012 [ ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.142/KOL/2010 TO 144/KOL/2010 ] A.YS. 2004-05 TO 2006-07 M/S. SUGAM SECURITIES PVT. LTD VS. D.C.I.T, C.C-VII, KOLKATA PAN: AAECS 7196N [ APPLICANT ] [RESPONDENT] MISC. APPLICATION NOS. 168/KOL/2012 TO 172/KOL/2012 [ ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.145/KOL/2010 TO 149/KOL/2010 ] A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2006-07 M/S. BAID MERCANTILES LTD. VS. D.C.I.T, C.C-VII, KOLKATA PAN: AABCB 0818R [ APPLICANT ] [RESPONDENT] FOR THE APPLICANT : SHRI A.K. TIBREWAL, CA, LD. AR FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI A.S MONDAL, ADDL.CIT/LD. SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 17-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27 -01-2014 O R D E R SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE ARE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 142 TO 144/KOL/2010 IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUGAM SECURITIES PVT. LTD. DATED 31-07-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006-07 AND IN THE CASE OF MA NOS.165-167 & 168-172/KOL/12 2 M/S. BAID MERCANTILES LTD IN ITA NOS.145 TO 149/KOL/2010 DATED 31-07-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006-07. 2. SHRI A.K. TIBREWAL, CA, LEARNED AR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI A.S MONDAL, ADDL.CIT/ LEARNED SR.DR REPRESENTE D ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER DATED 31-07-2012 OF THE TRIBUNAL SUFFERED FROM AN ERROR IN SO FAR AS THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK HAVE NOT BE EN CONSIDERED AND GROUND NO.4 IN ALL THE ASSESSEES APPEALS HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN BOTH THE CASES THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HIGH COU RT IN GA NO. 889 OF 2013 AND GA NO. 709 OF 2013 . THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ORDER OF T HE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DATED 22 ND JULY 2013. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT GROUND NO.4 OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE APPEALS WAS A LEGAL ISSUE AND THE SAME HAVING NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE SAID ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.07.2012, WHICH WAS LIABLE TO BE RECALLED AND THE SAID DEFECT S BE REMOVED BY ALLOWING THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED ADDL.CIT/SR.DR HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH CALLS FOR ANY REC TIFICATION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT THE OUTSET A PERUSAL OF THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES SHOWS THAT IT RUNS INTO MORE THAN 7 PAGES. IN SHORT FOR POINTING OUT TWO ALLEGED DEFECTS IN THE S AID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO GIVE SO MUCH EXPLANATION. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF LOG BOOK SHOWS THAT THE CASE LAWS AS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT RET URNED TO OR RELIED ON AT THE TIME OF HEARING. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF GROUND NO.4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEALS SHOWS THAT IT WAS ONLY A FACTUAL ISSUE, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ADJUDICAT ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS SAID ORDER. MA NOS.165-167 & 168-172/KOL/12 3 FURTHER, THE FACT THAT AN APPEAL HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL A LSO SHOWS THAT THE ISSUE(S) IN THE APPEAL(S) ITSELF ARE DEBATABLE AND THE TRIBUNAL IS FUNCTUOUS OFFICIO IN SO FAR AS ITS ORDER HAS BECOME SUB JUDICE BEFORE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE SAID ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH CALLS FOR ANY RECTIFICATION U/S. 254(2) OF THE I.T ACT 1961. CONS EQUENTLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEES STAND DISM ISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY BOT H THE ASSESSEES STAND DISMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/01 /2014. SD/- SD/- [ ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ] [ GEORGE M ATHAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 27/01/2014 **PRADIP SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPLICANT: M/S. SUGAM SECURITIES PVT. LTD & M/S. BA ID MERCANTILES LTD. 234/#A, A.J.C BOSE RD, FMC FORTUNA, KOL-20. 2. RESPONDENT: THE DCIT, CC-VII, KOLKATA 3. THE CIT(A) KOL. 4. THE CIT KOL. 5. DR,ITAT, KOL TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR,ITAT,KOL