The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Baroda V. M/s. Navjivan Roller Flour & Pulse Mills Pvt. Ltd., Dahod

MA 197/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2239 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR

Judgement Text

, , , , C, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, C BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA NOS.197 AND 198/AHD/2013 IN ITA NO.2698 AND 2699/AHD/2009 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2006-2007 AND 2007-2008] THE ACIT, CENT.CIR.1 BARODA. /VS. M/S.NAVJIVAN ROLLER FLOUR & PULSE MILLS PVT. LTD., KUMBHARWADA OPP: MARKET YARD, DAHOD. ( (( ( -. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( ( /0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) + 1 2 ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI M.K. SINGH, SR.DR 4& 1 2 ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR 5 1 &(* / DATE OF HEARING : 26 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 678 1 & (* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.09.2014 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 200 6-2007 AND 2007- 2008 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS IN ITA N O.2698 AND 2699/AHD/2009 DATED 7.9.2012. MA NOS.197 AND 198/AHD/2013 -2- 2. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 7.9.2012, AS AGAINST WHICH, THE REVENUE WENT TO HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21.10.2013 DIRECTED THAT THAT REMEDY TO THE DEPARTM ENT IS TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND REQU EST THE TRIBUNAL TO GIVE FINDINGS ON ALL POINTS WHICH ARE RAISED AND AR GUED IN THE APPEALS. HE SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN POINTS WERE ARGUED BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE REVENUES APPEALS, BUT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THE SAID POINTS. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITT ED THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DIRECTED THE DEPARTMENT TO APPRO ACH THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN FOUR WEEKS OF THE ORDER WITH SUCH AN APPLICA TION, AND ACCORDINGLY THE DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED THE PRESENT MAS. BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNLESS THE TRIBUNAL RECALLS ITS APPE LLATE ORDER DATED 7.9.2012, THE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO ARGUE ITS CASE ON MERITS. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT MENTIONED IN ITS MAS. THAT WHICH ARGUMENTS OF THEIR WAS NOT CONSIDER ED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM TH E RECORD, AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER, AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 7.9.2012 COULD N OT BE RECALLED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE COULD NOT MAKE OUT ANY C ASE FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DATE D 21.10.2013 PASSED IN MA NOS.197 AND 198/AHD/2013 -3- TAX APPEAL NO.367 OF 2013 PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE. WE FIND THAT HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS DIRECTED THAT THE REMEDY FOR THE REVENUE IS TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF PROPER APPLICATION AND REQUEST THE TRIBUNAL TO GIVE FINDINGS ON ALL THE POINTS WHICH A RE RAISED AND ARGUED IN THE APPEAL. THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT DATED 21.10.2013 IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR READY REFE RENCE: THE POINTS WHICH ARE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL THOUGH RAISED IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT SEEMS, ARE NOT DECID ED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THOUGH THE POINTS WERE ARGUED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IT HAS NOT GIVEN A NY FINDINGS ON THE SAID POINTS. IN OUR VIEW, FOR ENTERTAINING THE APP EAL, IT WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE REMEDY FOR THE APPELLANT IS TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND REQUEST THE TRIB UNAL TO GIVE THE FINDINGS ON ALL THE POINTS WHICH ARE RAISED AND ARG UED IN THE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT WILL APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN FOU R WEEKS FROM TODAY WITH SUCH AN APPLICATION. IF SUCH AN APPLICA TION IS FILED, THE TRIBUNAL WILL DECIDE THE SAME WITHIN FOUR THEREAFTE R. IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT FILED WITHIN STIPULATED TIME, TH E APPELLANT WILL NOT GET THE BENEFIT OF THIS ORDER. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THIS COURT HAS NOT EXAM INED THE MATTER OR EXPRESSED ANY OPINION ON MERITS. WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS, THIS APPEAL STANDS DISP OSED OF. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE PRESENT MAS. PREFERR ED BY THE REVENUE AFTER PASSING THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2013 BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT, IN REPLY TO A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LEARN ED DR WAS NOT ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY ARGUMENTS OR POINTS WHICH WERE ARGUED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS OF THE REVENU E, AND ON WHICH NO FINDING HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE LE ARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SR. DR WHO HAS ARGUED THE MATTER HAS BEEN TRAN SFERRED FROM HIS POST OF SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. WE FIND THAT MA NOS.197 AND 198/AHD/2013 -4- IN THE MAS. FILED BY THE REVENUE, NO POINT OR ARGUM ENT HAS BEEN MENTIONED, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, BY T HE TRIBUNAL. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THESE MAS., THE REVENUE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY ARGUMENT WHICH WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND ON WHICH IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE REVENUE THA T NO FINDINGS WERE RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. LIKEWISE THERE IS NO MEN TION OF ANY ARGUMENTS ON A POINT, WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN ARGUED BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS IN THE PRESENT MAS. PREFERRE D BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVI EW ITS OWN ORDER AND IT HAS LIMITED JURISDICTION TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH COULD BE SAID TO BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, NO MISTAKE COULD BE POINTED OUT IN TH E APPELLATE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 7.9.2012 (SUPRA), WHICH COULD BE SAI D TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE PRESENT MAS. PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE ARE DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, AND ARE ACCORDINGL Y DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MAS. PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD