FAG BEARINGS INDIA LIMITED, Baroda V. The ACIT, Circle-1(2), Baroda

MA 317/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4682 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ALBINUS TIRKEY
• Section: 80HHC; 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCO UNTANT MEMBER SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.) P.O. MANEJA DIST: BARODA PAN: AAA CF3 357 Q (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIR-1(1)(2), BARODA AAYKAR BHAVAN, RACE COURSE, BARODA - 390007 (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI BHAVIN MARFATIA, CA ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ALBINUS TIRKEY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 18-01-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-03-2019 /ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON NO. 317/AHD/2017 ON 15.12.2018 AGAINST THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITA NO. 1976/AHD/2007 DATED 24.04.2017 VIDE THE AFORESAID M ISCELLANEOUS PETITION THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT WHILE ADJUDICATING GROUND NO. 9(A) IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC IN RELATION TO THE EXPORT (EOU ) ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 10B OF THE ACT, THE ITAT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DE CISION OF ITAT PUNE IN THE CASE OF SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT IN 1 35 ITD 69 WHERE AS THE BENCH HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF MUMBAI ITAT IN THE O F TATA BP SOLAR INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 3381/MUM/2009. M.A. NO. 317/AHD/2017 (IN ITA NO. 1976 /AHD/2007) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 M.A. NO.317/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2003-04 PAGE NO SCHEFFLER INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE OBSERVED THAT BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE GROUND OF APP EAL NO. 9(A) AND 9(B) VIDE ITA NO. 1976/AHD/2007, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIO N OF BOTH THE SIDES (APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT) AND THE FACT OF THE CASE BEFORE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION OF SEC. 80HHC (3) (A) OF THE ACT AND FURT HER SCOPE OF PROFIT U/S. 10B FOR INCLUDING IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. 3. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS WE OBSERVE THAT POWER OF REGULARITY U/S. 254 (2) OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED WHEN THE MISTAKE TO BE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECOR D AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ADJOURNMENTS AND LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLE BE TWO OPI NIONS. 4. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, THE SAME STAND IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 -03-2 019 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 15/03/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / !' , #$