PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 , THANE V. HARISH K. VYAS (HUF), THANE

MA 277/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6111 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N HEMALATHA
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH M SHAH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P K BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT M A NO.277/MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 3076/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, THANE VS. M/S. HARISH K VYAS (HUF), PROP. OF M/S. SHREE BALAJI INFRAPROJECTS, A-404, JAY VRAJ LEELA CHS LTD DEEPAK NAGAR, 90 FT. ROAD, BHAYANDER (W) THANE 401 101 PAN AADHH5521E (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MS N HEMALATHA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HITESH M SHAH DATE OF HEARING : 05 .0 1 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5 .0 1 .201 8 O R D E R PER P K BANSAL, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, FILED BY THE REVEN UE, ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, DATED 16.11.2016 IN ITA NO.3076/M UM/2016. 2. THE REVENUE HAS MOVED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TION PRODUCING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND ON THAT BASIS CONTENDED THAT SINCE NEW FACTS HAVE EMERGED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. THIS TRIBUNAL U/S. 254(2) HAS MA NO.277/MUM/2017 M/S. HARISH K VYAS 2 THE POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAKE, IF IT IS APPARENT FRO M RECORD - WHETHER IT IS A MISTAKE OF FACT OR MISTAKE OF LAW. THIS IS A FACT THAT THE GROUNDS WHICH THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN UNDER PARA 3 OF ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NOW, WERE NOT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHEN IT DISPOSED OF THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ITSELF, THE REVENUE HAS STATED THAT SINCE NEW FACTS HAVE EMERGED, THE ORDER OF THE ITAT MAY BE VACATED. THE REVENUE MUST BE AWARE THAT THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HA VE THE POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. THE POWERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL U/S. 254(2) ARE RESTRICTED TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. EVEN U/S. 254(1) THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RESTRICTED TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL NOT OTHERWISE. WHAT THE REVENUE WANTS- THIS TRIBUNAL T O REVIEW ITS ORDER IN VIEW OF THE SUBSEQUENT FACTS BEING BROUGHT BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018. SD/- (P K BAN SAL) VICE-PRESIDENT MUMBAI; DATED: 5 TH JANUARY, 2018 SA MA NO.277/MUM/2017 M/S. HARISH K VYAS 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APP L IC ANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. T HE CIT(A), MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 5. DR, SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER, #TRUE COPY # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI