ASST CIT 1(1), V. CHEMSPEC CHEMICALS P.LTD,

MA 21/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2702 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN V P
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY THAKORE
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C B ENCH, MUMBAI . . , , . . , BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA , AM M.A. NO. 21/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.503/MUM/2004) BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1 ST APRIL 1990 TO 22 ND JANUARY, 2001) THE ACIT-1(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 M/S. CHEMSPEC CHEMICALS PVT. LTD., UNION COMMERCIAL HOUSE, 9,WALLACE ! ./ '# ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAACC 3620K ( !$ /APPELLANT ) .. ( %&!$ / RESPONDENT ) !$ ' / APPELLANT BY : ` SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN VP %&!$ ( ' /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AJAY THAKORE ) ( *+ / DATE OF HEARING :09.01.2015 ,-. ( *+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :09.01.2015 / O R D E R PER R.C. SHARMA, AM: VIDE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED AS ABOVE, THE DEPARTMENT IS CLAIMING THAT SOME MISTAKES HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DT. 29 TH MARCH, 2012 PASSED IN IT(SS)A NO. 503/M/04 WHEREBY APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED . 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR WAS ASKED TO SPECIFY THE PARTICULAR MISTAKES WHICH ACCORDING TO DEPARTMENT H AVE CREPT IN THE ORDER M.A. NO.21/M/2013 2 OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY LD. DR THAT SUCH GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS MENTIONED IN PARA-2.2. AND PARA 2.3 OF T HE APPLICATION. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THESE TWO PARAS ARE REPRO DUCED BELOW: 2.2. ON PERUSAL OF THE INSTANT JUDGEMENT OF HON BLE ITAT, MUMBAI DT. 29.3.2012 AT PARA 15A, IT IS NOTICED THA T ITAT HAS MENTIONED THAT AS PER COMPUTER RECORD MADE AVAI LABLE TO THEM, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT REJECTED THE W.P. N O. WPL/1044/2011 (REG. NO. WP/835/2012) IN THE CASE OF M/S. BHAICHAND AMOLUK CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. LTD. ON 17.8.2011. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TH E SAID W.P. NO. WPL/1044/2011 (REG. NO. WP/835/2012) IS YET TO BE FINALIZED BY THE HONBLE HIHH COURT AND THE SAME I S SCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON 13.2.2013 (AS PER PRINTOUT TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT, COPY OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR KIND PERUSAL. 2.3. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF PARA-16 OF THE INSTANT JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI DT. 29.3.2012, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE DEPARTMENTS WRIT PETITION NO. WPL/1284 OF 2011 IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHEMSPEC CHEMI CALS PVT. LTD WAS DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ON 29.6.2011. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD DECIDED THE SAID W.P. NO. WPL/1284 OF 2011 (REG. NO. 830 OF 2012) ON 13.8.201 2, WHICH IS AFTER THE DATE OF ITATS ORDER DT. 29.3.20 12 (COPY OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ORDER DT. 13.8.2012 IS EN CLOSED HEREWITH FOR KIND PERUSAL. 3. AS IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE GRIEVANCE OF TH E REVENUE, PARA- 2.2 RELATES TO MISTAKE ALLEGED TO HAVE OCCURRED IN PARA-15A OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN PARA-15A, THE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THA T THE WRIT PETITION NO. WPL/1044/2011 FILED ON 23.5.2011, AS PER COMPUTER R ECORD MADE AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL, WAS REJECTED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT U/S. 986 ON 17 TH AUGUST, 2011. ACCORDING TO REVENUE, SUCH MENTION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IS INCORRECT AS THE SAID WRIT PETITION IS YET TO BE FINALIZED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE SAME IS SCHEDULED FOR HE ARING ON 13.2.2013 M.A. NO.21/M/2013 3 AND FOR THIS PURPOSE REVENUE IS RELYING UPON THE PR INTOUT TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE. A CCORDING TO COPY OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE SITE OF HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE-17 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WRIT PETITION NO. WPL/1044/2011 FILED ON 23 RD MAY, 2011 WAS REJECTED U/S. 986 ON 17 TH AUGUST, 2011. THEREFORE, WE FOUND THAT THE OBSERVA TIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA-15A ARE NOT INCORRECT AND SUBSEQUENTLY DEPA RTMENT MAY HAVE GOT REVIVED THAT ORDER. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE IN PARA-15A OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THIS REQUEST OF THE R EVENUE IS REJECTED. 5. NOW COMING TO THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT BY THE REV ENUE IN PARA-16, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT AS PER PAGE-18 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE SAID WRIT PETITION WHICH IS MENTIONED IN PARA-16 I.E. W.P. NO. 1284 OF 2011 FILED ON 29 TH JUNE, 2011 WAS ALSO REJECTED U/S. 986 VIDE ORDER DT. 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. THIS WAS THE POSITION UPTO THE D ATE WHEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER, WHILE MENTIONING SUCH FACT, TRIBUNAL HAS WRONTLY MENTIONED THAT THE SAID WRIT P ETITION WAS DISMISSED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE JUDGEMENT DT. 29.6.2011. THUS, THERE IS A OBVIOUS MISTAKE IN PARA-16 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL AS THE WRIT PETITION WAS NOT DISMISSED BUT REJECTED U/S. 986 ON 7.9.2011. THE SAID MISTAKE IS BEING RECTIFIED AND NOW PARA-16 IS REPLA CED WITH THE FOLLOWING PARA: 16. ON A SIMILAR MATTER, THE REVENUE HAS FILED A W RIT PEITION IN CIT VS ITAT, W.P. NO. 1284 OF 2011, AND THE HONNLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DT. 7. 9.2011 HAS REJECTED THE WRIT PETITION U/S. RULE 986 OF BOMBAY H.C. (ORIGINAL SIDE) RULE. M.A. NO.21/M/2013 4 6. IT WAS THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT THIS MISTAK E MAY LEAD TO A CONCLUSION DIFFERENT FROM THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN S UCH CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE AS, IN ANY CASE, ON THE DATE WHEN TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE MATTER, THE WRIT PETITION MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL IN PARA-16 WAS IN THE STATE OF REJECTION. THEREFORE, ON THAT ACCOUNT , THERE CANNOT BE ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH COULD AF FECT THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE TRIBUNAL. 7. MOREOVER, IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DT. 12 TH DECEMBER, 2014 HAS ALREADY ADMITTED TWO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AGAINST THE IMPUGNE D ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 1544 OF 2012. CO PY OF THE ORDER HAS BEEN PLACED ON OUR RECORD. 8. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFOR ESAID. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON 09.01.2015. ( -. / 0)1 09.01.2015 - ( 2 SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL ) (R. C. SHARMA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 0) DATED 09.01.2015 . ) . ./ RJ , SR. PS M.A. NO.21/M/2013 5 ( (( ( %*3 %*3 %*3 %*3 43.* 43.* 43.* 43.* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$ / THE APPELLANT 2. %&!$ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 5 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 5 / CIT 5. 362 %*) , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 27 8 / GUARD FILE. ) ) ) ) / BY ORDER, &3* %* //TRUE COPY// 9 99 9 / : : : : ' ' ' ' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI