Sri. Ramakrishna Theatres Limited, Udupi V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2, Udupi

MA 22/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5174 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MALLAR RAO
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment

Judgement Text

MP.22/BANG/2018 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISC. PETITION NO.22/BANG/2018 (IN I.T.A NO.152/BANG/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) SRI RAMAKRISHNA THEATRES LTD, KALPANA THEATRE BUILDING, UDUPI 576 101 .. APPLICANT PAN : AACC8963R V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, UDUPI .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. MALLAR RAO, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : DR. PRADEEP KUMAR, ACIT HEARD ON : 25.01.2019 PRONOUNCED ON : 05.02.2019 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA.1 52/BANG/2017, DT.17.11.2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. MP.22/BANG/2018 PAGE - 2 02. THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED IN PARA 4 AND 5 OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, AS UNDER : 4. AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AND VIEW OF THE HON'BLE TRI BUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT PROCEED FOR ARGUMENTS WITH THE MAT TER, ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE PAPER BOOKS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLANT CLAIM BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 5. ON 17.11.2017, THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED THE JUDGMENT AND HELD THAT IN PARA NO.4 AS FOLLOWS: 'THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE IS COVERED BY TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER COPY OF THE ORDER WAS NOT FILED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE COPY OF THE ORDER, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE MATTER ON MERITS.' AS PER THE ABOVE MADE OBSERVATION OF THIS HON'BLE T RIBUNAL, IT IS HEREWITH BROUGHT TO THE KIND NOTICE OF THIS H ON'BLE TRIBUNAL THAT THE COVERED MATTER WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE COUNSE L WHO HAD REPRESENTED THE MATTER. EVEN AFTER THOROUGH CHECK, IT WAS UNABLE TO FIND THE COVERED MATTER. AS SUCH, THE COUNSEL TH EREIN WAS UNABLE TO SUBMIT THE SAME. IN FACT, DURING THE HEAR ING ITSELF, THE PRAYER OF THE COUNSEL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT ONLY FOR THE GRANT OF TIME HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. HENCE, THE COUNSEL WH O HAD REPRESENTED THE APPELLANT CASE HAD NOT ARGUED ON TH E MERITS OF THE CASE AND THEREOF NOT SUBMITTED THE PAPER BOO K IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE / APPELLANT CLAIM. 03. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR HAS DR AWN OUR ATTENTION TO GROUND 2 (B) OF THE APPEAL, IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF AR/ THE ASSESSEE , THAT THE PROVISION WOULD NOT HAVING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE MATTER BASE D ON THE NEW PROVISION INSERTED U/S.54EC OF THE ACT AND HAS SUBM ITTED THAT IT IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED. 04. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER, AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ADJUDICATED T HE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF NEWLY INSERTED PROVISION U/S.54EC OF THE A CT AND HAD ONLY MP.22/BANG/2018 PAGE - 3 DECIDED THE ISSUE AS PER THE EXISTING PROVISION ON THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. 05. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE BAS ED ON THE PROVISION AS EXISTING ON THE DATE OF FILING THE RET URN OF INCOME AND RELEVANT PROVISION WAS ALSO REPRODUCED BY THE TRIB UNAL IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER DT.17.11.2017. IN THE OPINION OF THE BEN CH, THERE IS NO ERROR MUCH LESS AN APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL. 06. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R BENGALURU DATED : 05.02.2019 MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.