M/S J.D. ELECTRONICS IND. PVT. LTD., Ahmedabad V. THE ITO, COM. WARD -7(2), Ahmedabad

MA 274/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7116 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT ,JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.274/AHD/2010 IN I.T.A. NO.2114 / AHD/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99) M/S. J.D. ELECTRONICS IND.(P) LTD., SHEFALI SHOPPING CENTRE, PALDI, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD VS. ITO, CO.WARD 7(2), AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : AAACJ5317J (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B.L. YADAV, DR DATE OF HEARING: 14.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.10.2011 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE POINTING OUT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 16.03.2007. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE MISTAKE IN HOLD ING THAT BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS IS REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF ONL Y TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME FROM JOB WORK WHEREAS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COM PANY WAS TO ALLOW SUCH SET OF TO THE EXTENT OF GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. RS.12,58,629/-. M.A.NO. 274 /AHD/2010 2 2. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE W AS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 11.02.2011. ON THAT DATE, ON THE REQUEST OF THE LD. A.R., HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION WAS ADJOURNED AND THE SAME WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 24.06.2011. ON T HAT DATE, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE HEARING WAS AGAIN FIXED FO R HEARING ON 12.08.2011. ON THAT DATE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 14.10.2011 AND THE NOT ICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED POST. THE NOTIC E HAS COME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE REMARKS LEFT. THERE IS NO INTI MATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING CHANGE IN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSE E. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO DECIDE THE MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE T HAT THE REQUEST MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS EQUIVALENT TO REVIEW OF THE TRIB UNAL ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D. R. OF THE REVENUE. WE FIND THAT IN PARA 13 OF THE IMPUGNED T RIBUNAL ORDER, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALER I N ELECTRONIC ITEMS FOR THE LAST MANY YEARS AND IT HAS DISCONTINUED ITS MANUFAC TURING ACTIVITY AND STATED CARRYING OUT THE JOB WORK AND IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED JOB WORK INCOME OF RS.13,631/- BESIDES THE INCOME OF RS.12,58,629/- BEING FROM THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. IT WAS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT INCOME FROM JOB WORK WAS ALSO I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BUT IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT IN ITS OPINION, THIS INCOME IS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE B EEN ALLOWED SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSSES AT LEAST TO THAT EXTENT AND THE BALANCE BUSINESS LOSS CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD TO THE NEXT YE AR BUT CANNOT BE SET OFF M.A.NO. 274 /AHD/2010 3 IN THE PRESENT YEAR. AS PER THE PREVISIONS OF SECT ION 72(1), BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS CAN BE SET OFF AGAINST THE BU SINESS PROFITS AND GAINS, IF ANY, OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION CARRIED ON B Y THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSABLE FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE PRESEN T CASE, IT WAS HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE IS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BUT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT INCOME FROM JOB CHARGES OF RS.13,631/- IS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS TO THAT EXTENT. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, THE MIS CELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTE D. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE O F HEARING ITSELF I.E. ON 14.10.2011. SD./- SD./- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED : 14.10. 2011 SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD M.A.NO. 274 /AHD/2010 4 1. DATE OF DICTATION 14/10 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 14/10.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S.14/10 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 14/10 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.21/10 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 21/10/2011 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..