Shri Manojkumar Babulal Agrawal,HUF, Palanpur V. The ACIT.,B.K.Circle, Palanpur

MA 217/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0413 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL KUMAR

Judgement Text

M.A. NO. 217/A/2012 (I N ITA NO.317/A/2012) . A.Y. 2008- 09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) M.A NO. 217 /AHD/2012 (IN ITA NO. 317/AHD/2012) (ASSESSMEN T YEAR: 2008-09) SHRI MAJOJ KUMAR B. AGRAWAL, KEDARNATH CORPORATION, NEW MARKET YARD, PALANPUR-385001 (APPELLANT) VS. THE ACIT, BANASKANTHA CIRCLE, PALANPUR. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AACHA 5547E APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAHUL KUMAR, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 07-06-20 13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 -06-2013 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE HAS FILED MISC. APPLICATI ON DATED 31.10.2012 (ARISING OUT APPEAL NO. 317/AHD/2012 ORD ER DATED 30.07.2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE H AS INTERALIA SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 17.05 .2012 HE HAD MOVED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WHEREIN HE HAD REQ UESTED THE ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING OF HIS APPEAL DUE TO THE NON AVAILABILITY OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. HE HAS FURTHER STAT ED THAT THE M.A. NO. 217/A/2012 (I N ITA NO.317/A/2012) . A.Y. 2008- 09 2 HON. BENCH HAD REJECTED THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND DECIDED THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE T HEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER BE RECALLED AND THE MATTER BE HEARD ON MERITS. 2. ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 7.06.2013 NONE AP PEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL, THE HON. ITAT HAS CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL O N RECORD AND DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS. FURTHER THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD WHICH REQUIRES RECALLING OR AMENDMENT TO THE ORDER. HE THUS OPPOSED THE PLEA OF LEARNED A.R. TO RECALL THE ORDER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R. AND ALSO GONE THR OUGH THE ORDER DATED 13.07.2012. WHILE DECIDING THE AFORESAID APP EAL, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE REAFTER GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE US NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER WHICH REQUIRES CORRECTION HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. . 7. IN THE CASE OF POPULAR ENGINEERING C O. V. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (2001) 248 ITR 0577 THE HON. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIG H COURT HAS HELD UNDER:- A PERUSAL OF SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 SHOWS THAT UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OF SECTION 254, THE APPELLATE TRIBUN AL CAN, AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, PASS SUCH ORDERS AS IT THINK S FIT. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 EMPOWERS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO AMEN D ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT M.A. NO. 217/A/2012 (I N ITA NO.317/A/2012) . A.Y. 2008- 09 3 FROM THE RECORD. IN THE EXERCISE OF POWERS VESTED IN IT UNDER SECTION 254 (2), THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVIEW OR REVISE AN ORDER MADE UNDER SECTION 254(1) THOUGH IT MAY AMEND SUCH ORDER FOR RECTIFYIN G A PATENT MISTAKE WHICH MAY HAVE CREPT IN, IN SUCH ORDER, ON ACCOUNT OF NON CONSIDERATION OF AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE OR PLEA RAISED BY THE AGGRIEVED PARTY. LIKEWISE, THE POSSIBILITY OF FORMING A DIFFERENT OP INION THAN THE ONE EXPRESSED IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) CANNOT BE TREATED AS A GROUND FOR ENTERTAINING AN APPLICATION UNDER SECT ION 254(2). 8. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, AND SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF HON. HIGH COURT CITED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE NO APPARENT MISTAKE HAS BEEN POINTED IN THE ORDER PASS ED BY US, THE PRESENT M.A. NEEDS TO BE REJECTED. WE THUS REJECT THE M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. THUS THE M.A. IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21-06 -2013. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY 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, AHMEDABAD