Geeta Prints Pvt. Ltd., Surat V. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-2, Surat

MA 191/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5101 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH KR SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. N. PAHUJA, A M) M. A. NO.191 AND 192/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NOS. 2098 AND 2099/AHD/2005 A. Y. 1992-93 AND 1993-94) GEETA PRINTS PVT. LTD., 150, GIDC, PANDESARA, SURAT VS THE C. I. T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT PA NO. AAACG 8818 R (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI RASESH KR. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM: WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE RECORD REVEALS THAT BOTH THE DEPARTMENT AL APPEALS WERE TAKEN UP OR HEARING ON 07-09-2009. NONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD DISPOSED OF BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AND ALS O NOTED THAT ON QUANTUM ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY ITAT. THE REFORE, PENALTIES U/S 271 (1) ( C ) OF THE IT ACT ARE JUSTIFIED. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WERE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS AN D HONBLE SUPREME COURT BUT ADMITTED THAT THESE DECISIONS WERE NEVER CITED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING BECAUSE THESE ARE L ATER DECISIONS AND NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON MERIT, THE ORDER CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. MA NO.191 AND 192/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO.2098 AND 2099/AHD/2005 GEETA PRINTS PVT. LTD. VS ACIT CC-1, SURAT 2 2. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSE SSEE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER P ASSED ON MERIT. WE ARE FORTIFIED IN OUR VIEW BY THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE C ALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANAMIKA BUILDERS 251 ITR 585, ANDHRA PR ADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF IDEAL ENGINEERING 251 ITR 743 AND TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF J. N. SAHAN I 257 ITR 16. SINCE, BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN DECIDED ON MERIT AND NOT HING IS POINTED OUT DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT AS TO WHERE IS THE MI STAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND IT PROPER TO INTERFERE W ITH THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE SUBSEQUENT BENCHES ARE NOT SITTIN G IN APPEAL AGAINST EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE ACCORDINGLY, DISM ISS BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS O F THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22-10-2010 SD/- SD/- (A N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 22-10-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD