ITO 4(1)(3), V. ANIBRAIN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES P. LTD,

MA 185/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4104 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: L
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M A GOHEL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA , A M & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , J M MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO . 185 /MUM /20 1 5 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1689 /MUM/201 2 ) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 8 - 0 9 ) ITO - 4(1)(3), MUMBAI VS. ANIBRAIN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., 401, GAZDAR HOUSE, 629 - A, JSHANKARSETH ROAD, MUMBAI - 400002 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A A FCA 6342 K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PANKAJ KUMAR /REVENUE BY : SHRI M.A.GOHEL / DATE OF HEARING : 05 /0 2 /2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 0 5 /02 /201 6 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARM A (A.M) : TH IS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY DEPARTMENT ARISING OUT OF ITAT ORDER DATED 11 - 3 - 2015 IN RESPECT OF ITA NO. 1689 /MUM/201 2 . 2. THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IT WAS CONTENDED BY LD. D R THAT ITAT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT PAYMEN T OF FIXED FEE OF $ 2000 PER WEEK WAS NOT COMMISSION. A DETAILED SUBMISSION WAS MADE IN SUPPORT OF IT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THRO UGH THE ORDERS OF TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUED IN GREAT DETAIL VIDE MA NO. 220/15 2 PARAS 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 & 16 OF ITS ORDER. THERE IS NO MISTAKE MUCH LESS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ISSUE WHICH REQUIRES GREAT DETAIL OF DISCUSSION AND ARGUMENT CANNOT BE DECIDED U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IS LIMITED TO RECTIFY ONLY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. THE DETAILED ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ITSELF INDICATE THAT IT REQUIRES GREAT DELIBERATION. SINCE THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5 . IN THE RESULT , MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 0 5 /02 / 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 0 5 /02 /201 6 . . /PKM , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPO NDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//