M/s. Pulvarti Private Ltd, Hyderabad V. Dy.CIT, Cirlce -16(3), Hyderabad

MA 219/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9845 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYASAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: K L RATHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B', HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 219/HYD/2012 IN MA NO. 164/HYD/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 699/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S. PULAVARTI POLYMERS PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD PAN: AACPJ7115J VS. THE DY. CIT CIRCLE 16(3) HYDERABAD APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SRI K.L. RATHI RESPONDENT BY: SRI DAYA SAGAR DATE OF HEARING: 04.01.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.01.2013 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: THIS IS THE SECOND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22 .6.2012 IN ITA NO. 699/HYD/2011. THE ASSESSEE MADE A PLEA IN HIS PETITION THAT THE TRIBUNAL ALTHOUGH NOTED ALL THE POINTS PAR TICULARLY 3 GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDER ATION AS MENTIONED IN THE M.A. AND FURTHER CASE LAWS CITED B Y THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN DISPOSI NG THE MA. BUT IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ' ... A CLOSE READING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22.6.201 2 CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN NOTE OF ALL T HE POINTS OF ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT '. THE AR SUBM ITTED THAT THE POINTS RAISED IN THE MA BEING VERY PERTINENT AN D FUNDAMENTAL POINTS PERTAINING TO TRIBUNAL'S SILENCE ON ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION ON THE ENTIRE PAYMENTS WITHOU T EXCEPTION WERE BY 'ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES' THAT THE ENTIRE PUR CHASERS SUFFERED EXCISE DUTY AND THIRDLY SALES TAX DEPARTME NT ITSELF MA NO. 219/HYD/2012 M/S. PULAVARTI POLYMERS PVT. LTD. ======================== 2 HAS SUPPORTED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VAT RETURN THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT INCLUDE OR FILL UP PARTICULARS OF INTER-STATE PURCHASES. THUS ON ALL THESE 3 POINTS, THE TRIBUNAL BEING SILENT, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO MAKE ABOVE MA AND THERE ALSO TH E TRIBUNAL IS SILENT ON THOSE 3 ISSUES. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT SUBMITTED BEFORE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ISSUES AND POINTS RAISED R EMAIN UN- DISPOSED OF IN AS MUCH AS THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPE AL ARE LEFT TO BE DECIDED, DISTINGUISHED OR REJECTED AND THIS O BVIOUSLY RESULTS IN MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. 2. THUS IT IS HAS BEEN MADE VERY CLEAR THAT THESE ISSU ES WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS IS CLEAR FROM THE A PPEAL ORDER AND MA ORDER. THE AR SUBMITTED TRIBUNAL DECISION OF A SPECIAL BENCH PRESIDED OVER BY SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND TW O OTHER MEMBERS AND REPORTED IN 69 ITD 1 WHEREIN THE SPECIA L BENCH HAD HELD IN PARA 15 AT PAGE 7 AS FOLLOWS: '15. THE INHERENT POWER TO RECTIFY A WRONG COMMITTED BY ITSELF, BY A COURT OR A TRIBUNAL, IS N OT, REALLY SPEAKING POWER TO REVIEW. IT IS ATONEMENT TO THE WRONGED PARTY BY THE COURT OR THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE WRONG THAT IT HAS ITSELF COMMITTED. THE TWO POWERS OPERATE IN DIFFERENT FIELDS AND ARE DIFFEREN T IN ESSENTIAL EQUALITY OR NATURE [SHEW PAPER EXCHANGE V. ITO [1974] 93 ITR 186 (CAL.)]' 3. THE AR REQUESTED BENCH TO TAKE NOTE OF THE SAME AND IN THAT CASE THE MISTAKE WILL BE OBVIOUS AN RECTIFICAT ION OF SUCH MISTAKE WILL NOT BE A REVIEW OF ORDER AS IS CLEAR F ROM THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH AT PARA 4 ABOVE. THE AR FURTHER REQUESTED THAT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL FINAL FACT FINDIN G AUTHORITY AND HENCE IT IS ALL THE MORE NECESSARY THAT ALL THE POINTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DECIDED IN THE END OF JUS TICE. HE REQUESTED THE TRIBUNAL TO ALLOW THIS PETITION, MORE PARTICULARLY ON ACCOUNT OF DECISION CITED ABOVE OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. MA NO. 219/HYD/2012 M/S. PULAVARTI POLYMERS PVT. LTD. ======================== 3 4. THE LEARNED DR OBJECTED TO THE CONTENTION OF THE A R AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THIS IS THE SECON D MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. EARLIER THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN MA NO. 164/HYD/2012 DA TED 21.9.2012. IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABL E TO MAKE OUT A CASE THAT THERE IS AN ERROR CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (CITED SUPRA). AS HELD IN EARLIER OCCASION BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS EARLIER MA ORDER, THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO RE-ARGUE TH E CASE WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING LY, THIS MA IS DISMISSED DEVOID OF MERIT. 6. IN THE RESULT, MA BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH JANUARY, 2013. SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED THE 4 TH JANUARY, 2013 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. PULAVARTI POLYMERS PVT. LTD., ROAD NO. 13, IDA MALLAPUR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 1 6 ( 3 ), HYDERABAD 3. THE CIT - I V , HYDERABAD 4. THE CIT - I, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR B BENCH, ITAT, HYDERABAD. TPRAO