Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Osmanabad V. M/s. Dharashiv Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Osmanabad

MA 173/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application (MA No. 173/PUN/2022) filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.1683/PUN/2015. The Revenue contended that there was a mistake apparent from the record in the Tribunal's previous order concerning the assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal had restored certain grounds to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The Revenue argued that this restoration was based on a misinterpretation of the law regarding the retrospective amendment of section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2014. However, the Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the original order, concluded that there was no mistake in their previous decision and dismissed the Revenue's application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 138057 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2021
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE „A‟ BENCHES :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.No. 173/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.1683/PUN/2015) (A.Y. 2011-12) DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Pune. vs M/s. Kharashiv Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Post – Chorakhali, Tal – Kallam, Dist – Osmanabad, Maharashtra – 413 405 PAN: AACCD 5704 D Applicant/Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by : Shri Kishore Phadke, AR Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani, DR Date of hearing : 02/06/2023 Date of pronouncement : 07/06/2023 O R D E R Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This Misc. Application preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.1683/PUN/2015, dated 24/09/2020 for A.Y.2011-12. 2. Addressing the contents of the Misc. Application filed by the Revenue, the ld.DR pointed out at para 19 of the impugned Tribunal‟s order, submitted that there is a mistake apparent from record which has crept in. 3. Per contra, ld.AR submitted that there is no mistake much less apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal and at para 19 as MA No.173/PUN/2022 M/s. Dharashiv Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 2 has been referred to by the ld.DR, the Tribunal, in its own wisdom by considering the submissions of the parties and documents on record, has restored the matter to the file of the AO for re-adjudication. Therefore, there is no mistake much less apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the submissions of the parties and considered the contents in Misc. Application filed by the Revenue and have also gone through our order (supra). 4.1 A reading of the contents of Misc. Application vis-a-vis our order, we do not find that there is any mistake much less apparent from record in our order. At para 19 which the ld.DR has referred to where the Tribunal has observed that as per the contention of the assessee, there is an amendment vide Finance Act, 2014 in respect of sec. 40(a)(ia) to restrict the disallowance at 30% instead of hundred percent and the amendment was effective from 01/04/2015. However, various Courts have held that the said amendment is retrospective in nature and it will be applicable to the period even prior to 01/04/2015. On this aspect, the assessee had relied on certain judicial pronouncements which are on record and has been made part of the Tribunal‟s order. Thereafter, at para 20, the Tribunal has held that ground No.6 was already remitted back to the file of the AO which shall also have bearing on this present issue and, therefore, ground No.9 was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication as per MA No.173/PUN/2022 M/s. Dharashiv Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. 3 law. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal and the Revenue is only contending for reviewing our order and such power of review is not within the periphery of jurisdiction u/sec. 254(2) of the Act, where the Tribunal only can rectify the mistake apparent from record. In view thereof, Misc. Application filed the Revenue is dismissed as devoid of any merits. 5. In the result, Misc. Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open Court on 07 th June, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 07 th June, 2023 vr/- Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 5. The DR, ITAT, “A” Bench Pune. 6. Guard File. By Order // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Pune.