VIDESSHWARI TRADE & DEVELOPMENT P. LTD, V. ITO WD 8(3)(4), MUMBAI

MA 234/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3812 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

3 4. LEARNED DR HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMESH ELE CTRIC & TRADING CO. (1993) 203 ITR 497 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THA T EVEN IF THERE IS FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADV ANCED BY EITHER PARTY IT MAY AT BEST BE CONSIDERED AS AN ERROR OF JUDGMEN T BUT IN EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT IT IS NOT A RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE L EARNED DR THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, APPEARING ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE, BROADLY LAY DOWN THE GUIDELINES AS TO THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE EXPRESSION WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, UNDER SECTION 37 (1) OF THE ACT. BUT EACH CASE HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE SET OF FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE PECULIAR FACTS TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. UNDER THE SE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE REJECT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010. SD/- SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DT. 30 TH JUNE, 2010 VBP/-