P PRAMOD JAIN, CHENNAI V. JCIT RANGE VI (NOW DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 9 ), CHENNAI

MA 308/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3334 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2022
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rule of consistency
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘सी’ ायपीठ चे ई म । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ी महावीर िसंह, उपा ! एवं माननीय ी मनोज कु मार अ&वाल ,लेखा सद) के सम!। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM M.A No.308/Chny/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.1480/Chny/2018) (िनधा@रण वष@ / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri P. Pramod Jain No.170, Triplicane High Road Chennai – 600 005. बनाम / V s. JCIT, Range-VII, Chennai. (now DCIT, Non Corporate Circle-9, Chennai). थायी लेखा सं. /जीआइ आर सं. /P A N/ G I R No . AL G P P-6786-R (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri T.N. Seetharaman (Advocate)-Ld. A.R थ की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22-07-2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 03-08-2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. By way of this Miscellaneous Petition, the assessee seeks recall of Tribunal’s order passed in ITA No.1480/Chny/2018 on 10-09-2019 wherein the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed. 2. Drawing attention to the petition, Ld. AR submitted that the findings rendered by the Tribunal in para-7 was contrary since the assessee had placed on record assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) for AYs 2009-10 and 2014-15 wherein the interest income was considered as Business Income. The nature of business would also indicate that the assessee M.A No:308/Chny/2019 2 was in money lending business and therefore interest income was to be treated as business income only. The Ld. AR also submitted that the reliance placed by the bench on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Barendra Prasad Ray and Others V/s ITO (1981) 129 ITR 295) is inappropriate. In the above background, Ld. AR sought recall of the order. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the review of the order is impermissible. 3. Upon perusal of para-7 of the order, we find that concrete findings have been rendered by the Tribunal that there was no continuous activity of lending and the advances to related parties were not with a motive to earn interest income. Nothing was brought on record showing that the assessee was granted license of money lending business. There was no organized activity carried on by the assessee. The decision of S. VInodh Kumar was held to be inapplicable. The rule of consistency was held to have no application in the present case. It could thus be seen that a particular view has been taken by the bench on the issue. If the arguments of Ld. AR are accepted, the same would amount to review of the order which is impermissible. As such there is no mistake on the face of the order. Therefore, we decline to entertain this application. 4. The application stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 03 rd August, 2022. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) उपा ! /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) लेखा सद) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे+ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 03-08-2022 EDN/ EDN/EDN/ EDN/- -- - आदेशकीTितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. यथ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु /CIT 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF