ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata V. Jelly Commotrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

MA 194/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4936 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAUL
• Assessee Lawyers: V K JAIN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) M.A. NO. 194/KOL/2019 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 196/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ITO, WARD-7(1), KOLKATA.............................................................APPELLANT VS. JELLY COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD.........................................................RESPONDENT [PAN: AACCJ 0218 Q] APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUPRIYO PAUL, JCIT, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. SHRI V.K. JAIN, FCA, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 1 ST , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 6 TH , 2019 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, AM :- BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE REVENUE SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 196/KOL/2017 DATED 15.03.2019. 2. AFTER PERUSING THE MA (MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION), WE FIND THAT THE SAME IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THIS IS CLEAR FROM PAGE 3 OF THE MA, WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NOR THE SR. DR DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE ITAT A BENCH, KOLKATA REGARDING RESTRUCTURING OF JURISDICTION AS PER NOTIFICATION NO. 50/2014 OF CBDT. WHEN SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS ARE NOT MADE AND WHEN THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS ARE NOT FILED, NO MISTAKE CAN BE FOUND IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, SPECIFICALLY WHEN A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE REVENUE. 3. THE DR RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK JAIN VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 55(1), NEW DELHI, WP NO. 11844/2016, DELHI HIGH COURT AND THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF D CRAFT ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. VS ITO, WARD - 6(1), KOLKATA, ITA NO. 1461/KOL/2017 , IN THE CASE OF M/S. TATA SONS LTD. VS ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), MUMBAI . THIS DEBATE ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE ALLEGED MISTAKE IS NOT APPARENT FROM RECORD AND INVOLVES LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS OF ARGUMENTS AND VERIFICATION OF RECORDS. HENCE 2 M.A. NO. 194/KOL/2019 A.O.O. ITA NO. 196/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 JELLY COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD. THE MISTAKE IN QUESTION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THE EXPRESSION MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAS LIMITED CONNOTATIONS, AND EVERY MISTAKE, APPEARING IN AN ORDER, CANNOT BE COVERED BY THE EXPRESSION MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THE CONNOTATIONS OF EXPRESSION MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD' HAVE BEEN JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED, IN THE LANDMARK JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS VOLKART BROTHERS [(1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC)] , AS FOLLOWS: AN ERROR WHICH HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS WHERE THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 4. IN THE RESULT, WE DISMISS THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. KOLKATA, THE 6 TH NOVEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- [ S.S. GODARA ] [J. SUDHAKAR REDDY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 06.11.2019 BIDHAN COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ITO, WARD-7(1), KOLKATA. 2. JELLY COMMOTRADE PVT. LTD., C/O. RSVPC & COMPANY, 41A, AJC BOSE ROAD, SUITE NO.613, KOLKATA-700 017. 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES