DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1, COIMBATORE V. BANNARI AMMAN SUGARS LTD., COIMBATORE

MA 214/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Chennai, as the petitioner, and M/s. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., as the respondent. The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Petition against the order passed by the Tribunal in a previous Miscellaneous Petition, seeking to recall the order. The Tribunal had earlier dismissed the appeal due to the Department's failure to provide evidence of Revenue Audit Objection acceptance. The Department argued for a decision on merits despite the tax effect being below the CBDT's monetary limit, while the respondent opposed the recall, citing legal prohibitions against such petitions. The Tribunal upheld its previous decision, emphasizing the absence of a mistake in the original order and the inapplicability of further modifications under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135412 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Audit objection; Tax effect
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी दुगाŊ राव Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जी. मंजुनाथा, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member M.P. No.214/Chny/2022 Arising out of M.P. No. 69/Chny/2020 [In I.T.A. No.1627/Chny/2019] Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(2), Chennai. Vs. M/s. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd., 1212, Trichy Road, Coimbatore 641 018. [PAN:AAACB8933G] (Petitioner) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) Petitioner by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Saroj Kumar Parida, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 17.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The Revenue has filed the present Miscellaneous Petition against the order passed by the Tribunal in M.P. No. 69/Chny/2020 in I.T.A. No. 1627/Chny/2019 dated 15.07.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2009- 10 seeking to recall the order passed by the Tribunal. By referring to the miscellaneous petition, the ld. DR has submitted that since the Department has accepted the Revenue Audit Party objections, even though the tax effect involved in the appeal is less than the monetary limit M.P. No.214/Chny/22 2 prescribed by the CBDT, it was prayed for deciding the appeal on merits by affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 3. Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted there was no mistake in the order of the Tribunal in M.P. No. 69/Chy/2020 dated 15.07.2022 as Miscellaneous Petition against Miscellaneous Petition is not permissible under law. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the order of the Tribunal. What was held by the Tribunal in its order in M.P. No. 69/Chny/2020 dated 15.07.2022 reads as under: “3. We have heard both the sides, perused the petition as well as order passed by the Tribunal dated 19.09.2019 and find that the Tribunal has considered CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 at length in para 4 to 6 as well as taken note of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at para 7 of the order while concluding the appeal order. Since the Department could not file any evidence of Revenue Audit Objection, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal”. 5. In our opinion, a fair reading of the MP order of the Tribunal, we find that there is no mistake apparent on record. Admittedly, the Department could not file any evidence of acceptance of Revenue Audit Party objection either with the petition or during the course of hearing. Even there was no mention about acceptance of the Revenue Audit Party objection by the Department. M.P. No.214/Chny/22 3 6. Further, section 254(2) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1) of section 254 of the Act with a view to recall/rectify/modify any mistake apparent from the record. To attract the applicability of section 254(2) of the Act, the mistake which is sought to be rectified or modified must be apparent from the record and the same must be in any order passed under sub-section (1) of section 254 of the Act. An order passed in the Miscellaneous Petition seeking further modification/rectification or recalling under section 254(2) of the Act is not an order passed under section 254(1) of the Act and it cannot be recalled or modified or rectified under section 254(2) of the Act. In view of the above facts, the present petition filed by the Department is dismissed. 7. In the result, the MP filed by the Department is dismissed. Order pronounced on 17 th February, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (G. MANJUNATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 17.02.2023 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 6. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.