DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana V. Smt. Rama Rani, Ludhiana

MA 3/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5220 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.3/CHD/2020 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 1240/CHD/2018) / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2016-17 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA VS. SMT. RAMA RANI, 53A, AGGAR NAGAR, LUDHIANA !'# ./ PAN NO: AAXPR4966R $ '!%/ APPELLANT '(!% / RESPONDENT M.A. NO.4/CHD/2020 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 1238/CHD/2018) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA VS. SMT. VEENA RANI, 9-A, AGGAR NAGAR, LUDHIANA !'# ./ PAN NO: AAXPR4967Q $ '!%/ APPELLANT '(!% / RESPONDENT M.A. NO.5/CHD/2020 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 1239/CHD/2018) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA VS. SHRI SUKHDARSHAN KUMAR, S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR DASS, 53-A,AGGAR NAGAR, LUDHIANA !'# ./ PAN NO: ABVPK9858L $ '!%/ APPELLANT '(!% / RESPONDENT M.A. NOS. 3 TO 7/CHD/2020 IN ITA NOS.1240,1238, 12 39, 1241 & 1242-CHD-2018-SMT.RAMA RANI & OTHERS 2 M.A. NOS.6 & 7/CHD/2020 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 1241 & 1242/CHD/2018) / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2015-16 & 2016-17 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA VS. M/S R.D. PALACE PVT. LTD., ADJOING AARTI CHOWK, FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA !'# ./ PAN NO: AACCR4669R $ '!%/ APPELLANT '(!% / RESPONDENT HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING APPELLANT BY : SHRI LALIT BISHNOI, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA DATE OF HEARING : 06.10.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.10.2020 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED MISC. APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN MOVED BY THE DEPARTMENT PLEADING THEREIN THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES APPARENT ON RECORD HAVE OCCURRED IN THE COMMON ORDER DATED 12.07.2019 OF THE TRIBUNAL P ASSED IN ITA NOS. 1240, 1238, 1239, 1240 & 1241/CHD/2018. 2. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE STATED MISC. APPLICATIONS REVEAL THAT THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH THESE APPLICATIONS WANTS TO CONT EST THE CASES AFRESH. REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO CERTAIN ADDITIONAL FACTS AND EVIDENCES STATING THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING NOTE OF T HESE ADDITIONAL FACTS AND EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THE ATTENTION OF THE LD. DR WAS INVITED TO THE RECORD M.A. NOS. 3 TO 7/CHD/2020 IN ITA NOS.1240,1238, 12 39, 1241 & 1242-CHD-2018-SMT.RAMA RANI & OTHERS 3 OF THE CASE BUT HE FAILED TO POINT OUT WHICH FACT O R EVIDENCE ON THE FILE HAS ESCAPED ATTENTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IN FACT, THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH THESE APPLICATIONS SEEKS THE REVIEW OF THE ORDER BY WAY OF PLEADING ADDITIONAL F ACTS WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 254( 2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVI EW ITS OWN ORDER. MOREOVER, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECOR D IN THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2019 (SUPRA) PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AF ORESAID CASES. IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS ANY GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED O RDER, PROPER COURSE IS TO AGITATE THE SAME BEFORE THE NEXT APPELLATE AUTHO RITY / HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME- TAX VS RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. 1993 203 IT R 497 (BOM.), WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF T. S. BALARAM, ITO V. VOLKART BROTHERS [1971] 82 ITR 50 AND FURTHER RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS HAS C ATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT; MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMEN TS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY C ONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. EVEN FAILURE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE M.A. NOS. 3 TO 7/CHD/2020 IN ITA NOS.1240,1238, 12 39, 1241 & 1242-CHD-2018-SMT.RAMA RANI & OTHERS 4 RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION UNDE R SECTION 254(2) TO PASS THE SECOND ORDER. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE THE LD. DR HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT WHAT FACT OR EVEN ANY ARGUMENT COMING FROM RECORD, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER IN THE ORDER DATED 12.7.2019. 3. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND THE LEGAL POSITION AS STATED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CAPTIONED AP PLICATIONS AND THE SAME ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 06.10.2020. SD/- SD/- ( . . / N.K. SAINI) ( ! / SANJAY GARG) '#$ / VICE PRESIDENT %&' / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 06.10.2020 ).. COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR