M/s. Mansi Motels Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

MA 31/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0711 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEW

Judgement Text

, , , , D, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, D BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ . .. . . .. .% %% %, ,, , &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MA NO.31/AHD/2012 IN CO NO.9/AHD/2010 [BLOCK PERIOD : 1-4-1990 TO 20-10-2000] M/S.MANSI MOTELS P. LTD. C/O. KETAN H. SHAH, ADVOCATE 903, SAPPHIRE COMPLEX C.G. ROAD, NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD. /VS. DCIT, BHARUCH CIRCLE BHARUCH. ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ./ 0 1 &/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KETAN SHAH ( 0 1 &/ REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C. MATHEW, SR.DR 3 0 /4'/ DATE OF HEARING : 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 567 0 /4'/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.09.2013 &8 / O R D E R PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A.NO.15/AHD/2009 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.199 0 TO 20.10.2000 DATED 30.12.2011 MA NO.31/AHD/2012 -2- 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MA HAVING PAGE NOS.1 TO 1 7, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 23.12.2011, RELEVANT PAPER BOOK PA GE 306 TO 321, WHEREIN VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND FACTS IN REFEREN CE TO THESE LEGAL GROUNDS/CASE LAWS HAVE BEEN RAISED, BUT THE S AME HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED AND/OR DISTINGUISHED OR FOLLOWED BY THE ITAT IN ITS ORDER DATED 30.12.2011. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED IN T HE MA THAT GROUND NO.1, AND GROUND NO.1.1 TO 1.7 OF THE CO BE RECALLED FOR FRESH HEARING SINCE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P.V. DOSHI, 113 ITR 222 AND HO NBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF MANISH MALHOT RA, 289 ITR 349 HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION PASSED BY THE ITAT. ALSO REBUTTAL TO CIT(A)S FINDING WERE GIVEN BEFORE THE BENCH, AND THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED B Y THE TRIBUNAL, AND THEREFORE, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM RECORD. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON TH E DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW, VIZ. ACIT VS. SAURAHSTRA KUT CH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD., 305 ITR 227 (SC), OMAR SALARY MOHAME D SAIT VS. CIT, 37 ITR 151 AND MANY OTHER DECISIONS, WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN THE MA. 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, AND ARGUED THAT A CONSCIOUS DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE BENCH IN ITS ORDER DATED 30.12.2011, AND IN FAC T THE ITAT HAS DISCUSSED EACH AND EVERY ARGUMENT MADE DURING THE C OURSE OF THE MA NO.31/AHD/2012 -3- HEARING OF THE APPEAL, AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPA RENT FROM RECORD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED AR IS TRYING TO GET REVIEW OF THE ITAT ORDER, WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SE CTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE MA CONTAINING PAGE NOS.1 TO 17. THE MISTAKE POINTED OUT IN THE MA, AS ARGUED B Y THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT, DECISION OF THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THAT OF THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND REBUTTAL TO THE CIT(A) APPELLATE FINDING WERE GIVEN BEFORE THE BENCH, AND THE SAME W ERE NOT CONSIDERED. IN THIS REGARD, A PERUSAL OF THE RECOR D AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE PARTIES, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT, AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN OUR ORDER DATED. 30.12.2011, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ON RECORD AND ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES IN PARA 4 TO 14 O F OUR ORDER DATED 30.12.2011, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER IN PAR A -15 HAS BEEN PASSED. WE FIND NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TO SEEK ITAT ORDER DATED 30.12.2 011 REVIEWED, WHICH IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MA NO.31/AHD/2012 IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT ( . .. . . .. .% %% % / B.P.JAIN) &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER