Smt. Padmavathi Krishana, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

MA 283/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7896 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V ARVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: G S PRASHANTH
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

MP.283 & 284/BANG/2017 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISC. PETITION NOS.283 & 284/BANG/2017 ITA NOS.1231 & 1232/BANG/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2007-08 SMT. PADMAVATHY KRISHNA, BANGALORE. PAN: AKVPO 2312H VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI K.V. ARVIND, STANDING COUNSEL ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.S. PRASHANTH, CA DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.09.2018 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA N OS.1231 & 1232/BANG/2013, DT.30.06.20.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. 02. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBU NAL IN ITS ORDER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF CIT V. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS [362 ITR 673] AND ALSO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.24/2015, DT.31.12.2015. THE A SSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER, MORE PARTICULARLY PARA 29 OF THE DECISION. MP.283 & 284/BANG/2017 PAGE - 2 03. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTE NTION TO PARA 24 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHERE A N IDENTICAL ISSUE HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. 04. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF ACIT V. SAUR ASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD [173 TAXMANN.COM 322] HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 254 OF IT ACT IN PARA 37 AS UNDER : 37. IN OUR JUDGMENT, THEREFORE, A PATENT, MANIFEST AND SELF- EVIDENT ERROR WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ELABORATE DISC USSION OF EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT TO ESTABLISH IT, CAN BE SAID T O BE AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND CAN BE CORRECTED WHILE EXERCISING CERTIORARI JURISDICTION. AN ERROR CANNOT BE SAID TO BE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD IF ON E HAS TO TRAVEL BEYOND THE RECORD TO SEE WHETHER THE JUDGMEN T IS CORRECT OR NOT. AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF TH E RECORD MEANS AN ERROR WHICH STRIKES ON MERE LOOKING AND DO ES NOT NEED LONG-DRAWN-OUT PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS WHERE THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. SUCH ERROR S HOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY EXTRANEOUS MATTER TO SHOW ITS INCOR RECTNESS. TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY, IT SHOULD BE SO MANIFEST AND CLEAR THAT NO COURT WOULD PERMIT IT TO REMAIN ON RECORD. IF TH E VIEW ACCEPTED BY THE COURT IN THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS, THE CASE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE COVER ED BY AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. IN OUR VIEW, FOR THE PURPOSES OF EXAMINING WHETHER THERE WAS AN ERROR APPARENT ON RECORD MENTIONED IN PARA 29 OR NOT, E LABORATE EXAMINATION OF FACT / DOCUMENT IS REQUIRED, WITHOUT WHICH IT W OULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPLICATION, FURTHER, SIMILAR Q UESTIONS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT : MP.283 & 284/BANG/2017 PAGE - 3 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW 22. WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSUMED VALID JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE? 23. WHETHER, THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW IN NOT FOLLOWING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HIGHER COURTS UNDER SIMILA R CIRCUMSTANCES AND IDENTICAL FACTS AND CONSEQUENTLY PASSED A PERVERSE ORDER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE? 24. WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN STATING THAT THE JUDGEMENTS ARE SILENT AS TO WHERE SATISFACTION IS TO BE RECORDED WHICH FINDING IS CONTRARY TO THE RAT IO OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN CALCUTTA KNITWEARS 362 ITR 673 AND CONSEQUENTLY PASSED A PERVERSE ORDER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE? 25. WHETHER, THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW IN NOT FOLLOWING ITS CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISIONS WHEREIN UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND IDENTICAL FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HAD QUASHED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143[3] R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE? THE LD. AR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FILING OF THE APPEA L AND RAISING THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IN APPEAL NOS.849/2017, DT.05.12.2017. HENCE IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO AGITATE THE SAME QUESTIONS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AS WELL BY WAY OF PR ESENT APPLICATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF SAURASHTRA KUTCH( SUPRA) AND PEND ENCY OF APPEAL ON THE SAME ISSUE BEFORE HIGH COURT WE DO NOT FIND ANY MER IT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. MP.283 & 284/BANG/2017 PAGE - 4 06. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (LALIE T KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BENGALURU DATED : 18.09.2018 MCN* COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY