The Agriculture Peoduce Market Committee, Kheda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3, Nadiad

MA 213/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0137 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S P BHATT
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITA NO M.A. NO. 213/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2004- 05 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENC H, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT J.M. & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) M.A. NO. 213/AHD/2012 (IN ITA N O. 1154/AHD/2008) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, MATAR. DIST. KAIRA. PIN- 387530 (APPELLANT) VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3,NADIAD CIR., NADIAD-387002 (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAALT0154E APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.P. BHATT A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K. SINGH SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 3.05.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 -05-2013 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE HAS FILED MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION DATED 25.11.2011 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1154/AHD/2008 (ORDER DATED 6.02.2012) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-0 5 WHEREIN IT IS INTERALIA REQUESTED TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS TO INV ALIDATE THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. 2. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT AS TH E MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(2) WERE NOT DISCHARGED, THE ASSESSME NT FRAMED UNDER 143(3) WAS NOT A VALID ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT DID NOT SURVIVE IN THE EYES OF LAW. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE ASSESSMENT BECA USE OF ABSENCE OF ITA NO M.A. NO. 213/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2004- 05 2 MANDATE AND THE SAME IS NOT CURABLE UNDER THE ACT. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE NECESSARY ORDERS BE PASSED EFFEC TING TO INVALIDATE THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3). THE LEARNED D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 25 4 ONLY MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT ON RECORD CAN BE RECTIFIED. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL THE HON. ITAT HAS TAK EN THE FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION AND THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE ON R ECORD WHICH REQUIRES RECALLING OR AMENDMENT TO THE ORDER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO GON E THROUGH THE ORDER DATED 25.06.2012. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN ORDER THAT REQUIRES CORRECTION. 4. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MA LWA TEXTURISING P. LTD (2007) 292 ITR 488 (MP) THE HON. HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER- ' UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAN ONLY RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND CANNOT REHEAR AN APPEAL AND REVERSE ITS FINDINGS ON THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF HE ARING THE APPEAL. FURTHERMORE, MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WOUL D MEAN PALPABLE MISTAKES ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND NOT MISTAKES WHICH THE TRIBUNAL WILL COME TO LEARN FROM LONG-DRAWN ARG UMENTS. 5. IN THE CASE OF POPULAR ENGINEERING CO. V. I NCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (2001) 248 ITR 0577 THE HON. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIG H COURT AS HELD UNDER:- A PERUSAL OF SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1 SHOWS THAT UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 254, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAN, AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, PASS SUCH ORDERS AS IT THINKS FIT. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 EMPOWERS THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IN T HE EXERCISE OF POWERS VESTED IN IT UNDER SECTION 254 (2), THE TRIB UNAL CANNOT REVIEW OR REVISE AN ORDER MADE UNDER SECTION 254(1) THOUGH IT MAY AMEND SUCH ORDER FOR RECTIFYING A PATENT MISTAKE WHICH MA Y HAVE CREPT IN, IN SUCH ORDER, ON ACCOUNT OF NON CONSIDERATION OF AN I MPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE OR PLEA RAISED BY THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. LI KEWISE, THE ITA NO M.A. NO. 213/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2004- 05 3 POSSIBILITY OF FORMING A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN THE ONE EXPRESSED IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) CANNOT BE TRE ATED AS A GROUND FOR ENTERTAINING AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2 ). 6. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, AND SEEN IN T HE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF HON. HIGH COURTS CITED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT SINCE NO APPARENT MISTAKE HAS BEEN POINTED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY US, THE PRESENT M.A. NEEDS TO BE REJECTED. WE THUS REJECT THE M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THUS THE M.A. IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24- 05- 2013. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY AHMEDABAD. RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,A HMEDABAD