Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -8,Pune, Pune V. Alpha Foam Limited, Pune

MA 260/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2888 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “A” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.260/PUN./2023 [E-M.A.] Arising out of I.T.A.No.1122/PUN./2019 - Assessment Year 2010-2011 The DCIT, Circle-8, Pune. Maharashtra. vs. Alpha Foam Limited, J-172, MIDC, Bhosari, Pune – 411 026. PAN AACCA4196J (Applicant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak Date of Hearing : 19.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, A.M. : This Revenue’s miscellaneous application M.A.No.260/ PUN./2023 filed in the assessee’s corresponding appeal ITA.No.1122/PUN./2019 for assessment year 2010-2011, seeks to recall/rectify the tribunal’s order dated 16.11.2022, allowing the main case thereby deleting the corresponding penalty of Rs.3,41,940/- u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"). . Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the sides that although the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance in the instant miscellaneous application is that the tribunal has committed an apparent mistake in deleting the penalty 2 M.A.No.260/PUN./2023 qua the quantum issue of depreciation only whereas the tribunal omitted to consider the latter issue of legal/professional reimbursements of Rs.1,68,500/- in question. We note that assessee had nowhere challenged the impugned penalty relating to the paying of legal and professional expenses disallowance since it had confined it’s grievance only regarding the quantum issue of depreciation disallowance claim a sum of Rs.3,32,500/-. We, therefore, find no mistake apparent on record in light of [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC) ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.; [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) and CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.; having settled the law that the purpose of sec.254(2) rectification is only to correct apparent mistakes than adopting long drawn process of roving enquiries. Rejected accordingly. 3. This Revenue’s miscellaneous application M.A.No.260/ PUN./2023 is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.04.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [INTURI RAMA RAO] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 22 nd April, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, Pune “A” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.