M/s SS Crop Care Limited, Bhopal V. The ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal

MA 24/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0584 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: H P VERMA; N D PATWA

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 24/IND/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 401/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 M/S S.S. CROP CARE LIMITED BHOPAL PAN AACCS 1450P :: APPELLANT VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3(1) BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI H.P. VERMA AND SHRI N.D. PATWA RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 26.7.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.7.2013 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPE LLATE ORDER DATED 11.2.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO. 401/IND/2012. DURING H EARING WE 2 HAVE HEARD SHRI H.P. VERMA ALONG WITH SHRI N.D. PAT WA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI R.A. VERMA, LEARN ED SENIOR DR. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHILE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL RESTRICTED THE RELIEF TO 50% OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR CASUAL WORKERS. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE ORDER DID NOT CONSIDER THAT THE A SSESSEE MAINTAINS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ALONG WITH VOUC HERS, THEREFORE, THE ORDER SO PASSED MAY BE RECONSIDERED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED SENIOR DR STRONGLY DEFE NDED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY SUBMITTING THAT FIRSTLY THERE I S NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SECONDLY AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE TOTALITY OF FACTS THE DECISION WAS ARRIVED AT. IT WAS ALSO PLE ADED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY TAKEN A LENIENT VIEW AND EVEN OTHERWISE NO REVIEW IS PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT DURING QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THE ONLY GROUND ARGUED BY THE A SSESSEE WAS WITH RESPECT TO DENIAL OF RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF DISA LLOWANCE OUT OF LABOUR AND WAGES AND ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT BY 3 RS.37,84,778/- BY MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITUR E OUT OF LABOUR AND WAGES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN BUSI NESS OF INSECTICIDES AND PESTICIDES ON JOB WORK BASIS FOR M /S BAREY CROP SCIENCE LIMITED. THE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE 4 (TABLE NO. 1) HAS ANALYSED THE COMPARATIVE CHART OF GROSS PROFIT/NET PROFIT AN D IN TABLE NO. 2 REGARDING PAYMENT OF WAGES. THERE WAS UNCONTROVERTE D FINDING THAT NO ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED FOR CASUAL WORKER/LABOUR AND THUS A LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE. HOWEVER, IT IS A FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN THE RECORD FOR CASUAL LAB OUR AND BY TAKING A LENIENT VIEW THAT TOO SAVE THE ASSESSEE FR OM UNDUE HARDSHIP, THE DISALLOWANCE WERE FURTHER REDUCED TO 50% AGAINST RS. 38,84,778/- SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). STILL THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO FILE THIS APPLICATION U/S 254 OF THE ACT. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPLICATION. 3. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS LIMITED POWERS U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT AND ONLY MISTAKE OF ARITHMETICAL/CLERICAL N ATURE CAN BE RECTIFIED. THE POWERS OF REVIEW MUST BE CONFERRED B Y THE STATUTE. REVIEW OF AN ORDER MEANS RE-EXAMINATION OR TO GIVE A SECOND VIEW OF THE MATTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALTERATION OR REVERS AL OF THE VIEW 4 ALREADY TAKEN AFTER CHANGING THE EARLIER OPINION OR VIEW. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(1) IS THE EFFECTIVE ORDER SO FAR AS THE APPEAL IS CONCERNED. ANY ORDER PASSED U/S 254(2) EI THER ALLOWING AMENDMENT OR REFUSING TO AMEND GETS MERGED WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED. THAT IS THE FINAL ORDER OF THE APPEAL . RECALLING OF ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2) AS RECALLING AUTOMATI CALLY NECESSITATES REHEARING AND RE-ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL. OUR VI EW IS SUPPORTED BY THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: CIT VS. B.P. AGRAWAL (90 TAXMAN 283) (CAL), KARAN & CO. (253 ITR 131) (DEL), NIRANJAN & CO. LTD. VS. ITAT (122 ITR 519) (CAL), CIT VS. ITAT (196 ITR 640) (ORI), CIT VS. ITAT (155 TAXMAN 378) (DEL), EXPRESS NEWS PAPERS LTD. VS. DCIT, 186 TAXMAN 111 ( MAD), CIT VS. SUMAN TEA & PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES P. LTD., 226 ITR 34 (CAL), CIT VS. ANAMIKA BUILDERS P. LTD., 117 TAXMAN 356 (C AL). 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PINPOINTED ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL NOR IT IS A CASE OF CLERI CAL OR ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE RATHER THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON, THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO GET THE ORDER REVIEWED WHICH POWERS AR E NOT VESTED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS, NO CASE IS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS 5 MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THEREFORE, SAME IS DISMISSE D. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCL USION OF THE HEARING ON 26.7.2013. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 26.7.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/-