The Fifth Dimension Academy, Gwalior V. A.C.I.T., Circle-3(1), Gwalior

MA 19/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0419 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 19/AGRA/2013 (IN ITA NO. 386/AGRA/ 2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 M/S. THE FIFTH DIMENSION ACADEMY VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE 3(1) E-96, BALWANT NAGAR, THATIPUR, GWALIOR GWALIOR. (PAN AAATT 9125 F) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.K. LULLA, C.A. REVENUE DEPTT. BY : SHRI S.D. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.07.2013 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DECIDED VIDE ORDER DA TED 31.05.2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW MOVED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE ISSUE AND DETAILS FOUND THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION I N VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF M.A NO.19/AGRA/2013 IN ITA NO.386/AGRA/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 2 THE I.T. RULES AND WITHOUT EXAMINING THE ISSUE IN P ROPER PROSPECTIVE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS SET-ASID E AND THE APPEAL WAS RESTORED TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE TH E APPEAL BY FOLLOWING RULE 46A OF THE I.T. ACT STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE RULE 46A OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THERE IS MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AT THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE COMPL ETE DETAILS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THE A.O., THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW THEIR ORDERS ONCE P ASSED ON MERIT. WE RELY UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ANAMIKA BUILDERS PVT . LTD. (2001) 251 ITR 585, DECISION OF THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. IDEAL ENGINEERS (200 1) 251 ITR 743 AND DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF AGARWAL WAREHOUSING AND LEASING LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (2002) 257 ITR 235. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHER S (2006) 284 ITR 42 M.A NO.19/AGRA/2013 IN ITA NO.386/AGRA/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 3 (CAL.) HELD THAT THE MISTAKE MUST BE SO OBVIOUS TH AT IT CAN EASILY BE CORRECTED, TO WIT AN ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE, A WRONG QUOTATION O F SECTION ETC. AND NOT ON DEBATABLE ISSUE. SINCE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE AFTER CONSIDERING EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF THE MATTER ON MERITS AND THE MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSID ERATION, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, THEREFORE, REVIEW OF THE ORDER IS NOT PERMISSI BLE WHILE EXERCISING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, M.A. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDING LY DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- -SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAV NESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AMIT/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY