JYOTI IMPEX, V. ITO WD 22(1)(2),

MA 209/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0955 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH V S

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES J, MUMBAI .. , ! ' , ## $ ' , % BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM && '' ./ MA NO.209/MUM/2013 ( )*+ , / ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1671/MUM/2013) ( $' - $' - $' - $' - / / / / ASST.YEAR 2009-2010) M/S.JYOTI IMPEX 201, SAI INFOTECH, R.B.MEHTA MARG GHATKOPAR (EAST) MUMBAI 400 077. PAN : AAFFJ8683D. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(1)-2 MUMBAI. ( ' / // / APPLICANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( ./01/ RESPONDENT) ' 2 22 2 3 3 3 3 / APPLICANT BY : SHRI HARISH V.S. ./01 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K.SINHA ' 2 +! / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 06.09.2013. 45- 2 +! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.09.2013. '6 '6 '6 '6 / / / / O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S.254(2) OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE PRAYING FO R THE RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 03 RD MAY, 2013 PASSED IN ITA NO.1671/MUM/2013 FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMEN T YEAR. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CO MMISSION VIDE PARA 4 OF ITS ORDER. THE LEARNED AR CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MA NO.209/MUM/2013 M/S.JYOTI IMPEX. 2 FILED ADDRESSES OF THE RECIPIENTS OF THE COMMISSION WHICH WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. IT WAS, THEREFORE, REQUES TED THAT NECESSARY ALTERATION BE MADE BY ALLOWING THE SAID GROUND. IN THE OPPOSITION, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE I MPUGNED ORDER. 3. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE ABOUT DI SALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION OF ` 18.73 LAKH ON DOMESTIC PURCHASES HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 4 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. IT WAS F AIRLY ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE ORIGINAL APPEAL , AS HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THAT THERE IS NO EV IDENCE OF RENDERING ANY SERVICES BY THE COMMISSION AGENTS. TH E CONTENTION THAT THE DEDUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS THE PAYMENTS WER E MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WAS FOUND TO BE WITHOUT ANY BASIS I N THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE HAVING PROVED THE RENDERING OF ANY SERVICE S. WE ARE UNABLE TO FIND ANY MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY WHICH THE ADDITION OF ` 18.73 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION HAS BEEN CONFIR MED FOR LACK OF APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE FORTHCOMING FROM THE SIDE O F THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ON THE APPRECIATION OF THE ENTIRE MATERIAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL THAT IT CAME TO THE POSITIVE CONCLUSION ABOUT THE NON-AD MISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION. WHEN SUCH A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN, THERE CA N BE NO QUESTION OF ARGUING THE SAME THING AGAIN THROUGH TH E MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, WHOSE SCOPE IS RESTRICTED IN RECTIFYIN G A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND NOT REVIEWING THE ORIGINAL ORDER. W E, THEREFORE, DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION. MA NO.209/MUM/2013 M/S.JYOTI IMPEX. 3 4. 7 +8 ' 2 && '' !7 2 + 9: IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 6 TH SEPTEMBER , 2013. '6 2 45- ;''8 5 2 # SD/- SD/ - (SANJAY GARG) (R.S.SYAL) $ ' $ ' $ ' $ ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; ;'' DATED : 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. DEVDAS* '6 2 .$+<& =&-+ '6 2 .$+<& =&-+ '6 2 .$+<& =&-+ '6 2 .$+<& =&-+/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPLICANT. 2. ./01 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. > () / THE CIT(A) - 33, MUMBAI. 4. > / CIT 5. &A# .$+$' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. #B C / GUARD FILE. '6' '6' '6' '6' / BY ORDER, /&+ .$+ //TRUE COPY// ) ) ) )/ // /9 9 9 9 ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI