The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad V. Parle International Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

MA 212/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4805 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH ' AHMEDABAD BENCH ' AHMEDABAD BENCH ' AHMEDABAD BENCH 'A AA A' '' ' BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI T. K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER T. K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER T. K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER T. K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.21 .21.21 .212 22 2/AHD/200 /AHD/200 /AHD/200 /AHD/2008 88 8 (ARISING OUT OF (ARISING OUT OF (ARISING OUT OF (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.1 11 1211 211 211 211/ // /AHD/ AHD/ AHD/ AHD/200 200 200 2007 77 7) )) ) ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994 1994 1994 1994- -- -1995 1995 1995 1995 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD-III, C.U.SHAH BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. V/S M/S. PARLE INTERNATIONAL LTD., 101, G.I.D.C. ESTATE, VATVA, AHMEDABAD. [ APPELLANT ] [ RESPONDENT ] B Y REVENUE SHRI K. M. MAHESH, SR. D.R. B Y ASSESSEE SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, SR. ADVOCATE. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R THIS IS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEAABD-III, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28-03- 2008 PASSED IN ITA NO.1211/AHD/2007 DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTAT IVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD- III. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ONLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO CAN FILE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL. THEREFORE, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVE NUE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. WE FIND THAT SECTION 254(2) READS AS UND ER:- SECTION 254(2) (2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER, WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING AN Y MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION -2- (1) AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE 2044 [ASSESSING OFFIC ER:] 3. A BEAR PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISION SHOWS THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION POINTING OUT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE FROM THE RECORDS CAN BE FILED EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER ONLY. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT OR RULE UNDER WHICH CIT IS AUTHORISED TO FI LE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN A CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT WAS M/S. PARLE I NTERNATIONAL LTD., AND DY. C.I.T.(SPL) RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD WAS THE RESPOND ENT. THUS, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION COU LD HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE CONCERNED LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT ADMITTED AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE . HOWEVER, THE REVENUE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE PROPER MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATION IF SO ADVISED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE O F THE HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES ON 13-08-2010. SD/- SD/- (T. K. SHARMA) (N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 13/08/2010 PATKI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD -3- DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 13-8-2010 -- --------------- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 13-8-201 ----------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 13-8- 2010 ------------------ JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 13-8-2010 --------------- JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 13- -8-2010 ----------------- 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 13-8 -2010 ----------------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 1 6-8-2010 ----------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE -------------- -- ----------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER --------- ------- -----------------