CENZER INDUSTRIES LTD, V. ITO 5(1)(3),

MA 219/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1180 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 30-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARESH SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: O P SINGH

Judgement Text

C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI .. , !'# $ $ $ $ %$ $; ' !'# !( BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM %$%$ $') 218 TO 220 /MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 3721 TO 3733/M/2007 ( ') 0 $10 ') 0 $10 ') 0 $10 ') 0 $10 / / / / ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2000-01) M/S CENZER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, 20-B, SUGRA BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, 16 TH TRIBHUVAN ROAD, MUMBAI 400 004. ) ) ) ) / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER - WARD 5(1)(3), MUMBAI. #3 !./ PAN :AAACJ1478Q (APPLICANT) .. RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY : SHRI PARESH SHAH ASSESSEE BY : SHRI O.P. SINGH !)$ 4 / // / DATE OF HEARING : 11-10-2013 561 4 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-10-2013 '7 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : OUT OF THESE THREE MISC. APPLICATIONS, MISC. APPLIC ATION 218/MUM/2012 IS ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 5 TH JUNE, 2009 PASSED IN ITA NO. 3731/MUM/2007 WHILE THE REMAINING TWO MISC. APPLICA TIONS I.E. MISC. APPLICATIONS NO. 219 & 220/MUM/2012 ARE ARISING FROM THE COMMON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29 TH MAY, 2009 PASSED IN ITA NO. 3732 & 3733/MUM/2007. 2. AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE MISC APPLI CATIONS AND FURTHER REITERATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEA RING BEFORE US, THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS THREE APPEALS IN ITA NO. 3731/3732 & 3733/MUM/2007 CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT WAS NOT PR ESSED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS THE OTHER ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE SAID APPEALS RELATING TO ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF DEPB RECEIPTS WAS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON M ERIT BY ANOTHER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE SA ID ISSUE ON MERIT AND DISMISSED THE MA 218 TO 220 15/MUM/2012 2 GROUND INVOLVING THE ISSUE RELATING TO VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT AS NOT PRESSED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS A RESULT OF THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA, THE TRIB UNAL ALLOWED THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND DECIDED THE ISSUE RELAT ING TO ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF DEPB RECEIPTS AGA INST THE ASSESSEE BY MODIFYING ITS ORDER. IT IS URGED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY THEREFORE SUITABLY BE MODIFIED BY RECALLING THE SAID ORDER ON THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE R ELATING TO THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENTS AS THE ASSESSEE NOW SEEKS TO REVISIT THE SAID ISSUE CONSEQUENT TO ITS FAILURE TO SUCCEED ON MERIT ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO ITS CL AIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF DEPB RECEIPTS. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THESE MISC . APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE RELEVANT GROUNDS RELATING TO THE PRELIMINA RY ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT WERE NOT PRESSED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE O F THE ASSESSEE FOR WHATEVER REASON AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE MUCH LESS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN DISMISSING THE SAME AS NOT PRESS ED. EVEN IF THE SAID PRELIMINARY ISSUE NOT PRESSED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW BECOME SUBSTANTIVE AS A RESULT OF ANY SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPME NT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD IN DISMISSING THE RELEVANT GROUNDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALL Y DID NOT PRESS. WE, THEREFORE, DISMISS THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH OCTOBER, 2013.. . . '7 4 561 8')9 11-10-2013 6 4 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) ( P.M. JAGTAP ) !'# / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' !'# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 8') DATED 11-10-2913. .').!./ RK SR. PS MA 218 TO 220 15/MUM/2012 3 '7 4 @'A% B%1 '7 4 @'A% B%1 '7 4 @'A% B%1 '7 4 @'A% B%1/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 3C / THE APPELLANT 2. @D3C / THE RESPONDENT. 3. E () / THE CIT(A)- MUMBAI CONCERNED 4. E / CIT MUMBAI CONCERNED 5. %$H @'') , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI D BENCH 6. I0 J / GUARD FILE. '7)! '7)! '7)! '7)! / BY ORDER, !D% @' //TRUE COPY// K K K K/ // /!L !L !L !L ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI