ACIT, Ludhiana V. M/s Mukand Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

MA 27/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4235 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.27/CHD/2015 IN ITA NO.372/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) THE DC.I.T, VS. MUKUND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., CIRCLE 1, B-XXX/2185, PHASE V, LUDHIANA. FOCAL POINT, LUDHIANA. PAN: AACCM5981 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. MITTAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.04.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS IS AN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE REQUESTING TO AMEND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 9.7.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.372/CHD/2014. 2. IN THE ORIGINAL APPEAL, THREE GROUNDS WERE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH WERE DULY ADJUDICATED IN THE ORDER DATED 9.7.2014. THROU GH 2 THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE DEPARTMENT HAS MADE TWO PRAYERS. FIRSTLY, IT IS STATED THAT THE G ROUND NO.II) RAISED IN THE ORIGINAL APPEAL WAS WRONGLY TA KEN AND THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO SUBSTITUTE THIS GROUND BY TWO OTHER GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AT PAGE 3. 3. SECONDLY, IT WAS STATED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL APPEAL, THE DEPARTMENT INADVERTENTLY MISSED TO RAIS E GROUND RELATING TO DEPRECIATION ON ACCOUNT OF INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC LINES FOR POWER TRANSMISSI ON. THROUGH THIS APPLICATION, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE GROUND NO.II) BE AMENDED AND THE DEPARTMENT MAY BE PERMITTED TO RAISE A NEW GROUND. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE, WE SEE THAT THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND ONE OF THE GROUNDS AND TO RAISE A NEW GROUND. SINCE THE GROUNDS RAISE D IN THE ORIGINAL APPEAL WERE DULY ADJUDICATED UPON A ND THE MISTAKE OF RAISING A WRONG GROUND AND OMITTING TO RAISE ANOTHER GROUND WAS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLA NT AND NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD APPEARING IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T. 5. IN THIS VIEW, WE DO NOT INTEND TO AMEND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 9.7.2014 AS PRAYED BY T HE 3 DEPARTMENT IN THEIR APPLICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29 TH APRIL, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE D R. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH