Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalna Circle, , Jalna V. Jalna Siddhivinayak Alloys Private Limited, Jalna

MA 311/PUN/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4185 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.311/PUN./2022 Arising out of I.T.A.No.1381/PUN./2018 - Assessment Year 2006-2007 The ACIT, Jalna Circle, Jalna. vs. Jalna Siddhivinayak Alloys Pvt. Ltd., C-4, Add. MIDC Area, Jalna – 431 203 PAN AAACJ8761E (Applicant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, JCIT For Assessee : -None- Date of Hearing : 19.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s miscellaneous application M.A.No.311/PUN./2022 filed u/s.254(2) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act"), seeks to recall/rectify tribunal’s order dated 19.07.2019 allowing the assessee’s corresponding main appeal I.T.A.No.1381/PUN./2018 thereby deleting sec.271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.3,08,587/- in question. Heard department at length. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. We note during the course of hearing that this tribunal’s impugned order had accepted the assessee’s main 2 M.A.No.311/PUN./2022 appeal I.T.A.No.1381/PUN./2018 challenging validity of the impugned penalty proceedings on account of Assessing Officer’s failure in not pin-pointing the corresponding limb u/sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The same hardly involves any apparent mistake on record warranting recall/rectification of the tribunal’s order dated 19.07.2019 u/sec. 254(2) of the Act; in our considered opinion in light of [2008] 305 ITR 277 (SC) ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd.; [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.; and [1993] 203 ITR 497 (Bom.) CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. have settled the law that the purpose of sec.254(2) rectification is only to correct apparent mistakes than adopting long drawn process of roving enquiries. 3. This Revenue’s miscellaneous application is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.01.2024. Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 24 th January, 2024 VBP/- 3 M.A.No.311/PUN./2022 Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A) concerned 4. The CIT, concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.