ACIT.RG-II, Lucknow V. M/S Harbilas cold storage & food poducts, Lucknow

MA 22/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8836 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S. K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. R. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M .A. NO. 22 /LKW/1 1 (IN I.T.A. NO.546/LKW/10) ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2006 - 2007 A.C.I.T., VS. M/S HARBILAS COLD STORAGE RANGE - 2, AND FOOD PRODUCTS, LUCKNOW. 11, M.G. MARG, LUCKNOW. (APP LICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APP LICANT B Y : MS. MANJU THAKUR, D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J. J. MEHROTRA, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 22 / 06 /201 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/07/2012 ORDER PER S. K. YADAV, J.M,: THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS PREFERRED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO.546/LKW/10 DATED 12/11/2010 WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 1997 - 98 TO 2005 - 06 FROM THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE HAVING PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THESE ORDERS WHEREAS IN SOME OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ISSUE WAS NOT DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE FORE, THE MISTAKE HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CALLS FOR RECTIFICATION. THE 2 LEARNED D.R. FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ARGUMENTS RAISED AND THE JUDGMENTS RELIED ON BY LEARNED D.R. ARE NOT INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE RECALLED AND FRESH HEARING SHOULD BE GIVEN. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUT ATTENTION TO THIS FACT THAT CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF ON THE BASIS OF THE CONSISTENT VIEW TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT Y EARS. THE CIT(A) HIMSELF HAS DISCUSSED THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR EARLIER YEARS IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS CONSIDERED TO BE THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A) TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS THE INCOME WAS TREATED TO BE THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THEREFORE, FOLLOW ING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. 3. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL SUB MISSIONS AND FROM PERUSAL OF THE MISC. APPLICATION VIS - - VIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE RECORDS AVAILABLE BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT THE RECORD O F EARLIER YEARS IS AVAILABLE AND THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE CIT(A) HAS HIMSELF MADE REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF PAST RECORD, CANNOT BE CALLED TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. MOREOVER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL IN ITS ORDER AFTER RECORDING THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LEARNED D.R.S ARGUMENTS WERE 3 RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THREE PAGES, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ARGUMENTS AND THE CASE LAW S RELIED ON BY THE D.R. WERE NOT INCORPORATED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. MOREOVER, THE SCOPE OF 254(2) IS VERY LIMITED. ONLY THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD CAN BE RECTIFIED. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER MAKING DETAILED DISCUSSION CANNOT BE REVIEWED UNDER THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A CONS CIOUS VIEW ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFTER MAKING DETAILED DISCUSSION, IT CANNOT BE REVIEWED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION AND D ISMISS THE SAME. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/07/2012 ) SD/. SD/. ( B. R. JAIN ) ( S. K. YADAV ) ACC OUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 03/07/2012 *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR