M/s Jotwani TV Centre, Hubli V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hubli

MA 32/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2258 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K SRIHARI IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK S
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.P. NO.32/BANG/2014 (IN ITA NOS. 410, 414 & 418/BANG/2013) ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 TO 2007-08 M/S. JOTWANI TV CENTER, STATION ROAD, HUBLI 580 025. PAN : AAEFJ 7366G VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), HUBLI. APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI ASHOK S., ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K. SRIHARI, IRS DATE OF HEARING : 19.09.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.09.2014 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE PRAYING FOR A REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 2. IN THE AFORESAID APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, T HE QUESTION WAS WHETHER SALARY AND INTEREST PAID TO PARTNERS HAD TO BE DISALLOWED IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184(5) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBU NAL AFTER ANALYZING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184(5) AND AFTER GIVING A FIN DING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT WERE RIGHTLY INVOKED BY THE AO, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON SAL ARY PAID TO PARTNERS BY M.P. NO. 32/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 3 INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 184(5) OF THE ACT WA S CORRECT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEALS WERE DISMISSED. 3. IN THIS M.P., THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED THE CO RRECTNESS OF THE AFORESAID ORDER. IN PARAS 1 TO 4 OF THE PETITION, THERE IS A REFERENCE TO A PENALTY IMPOSED U/S. 44AB OF THE ACT WHICH IS IRREL EVANT AS FAR AS THE PRESENT M.P. IS CONCERNED. IN PARA 5 OF THE PETITIO N, THERE IS A GENERAL ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT LOOKE D INTO THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE WHILE PASSING BEST JUDGMENT ASSE SSMENT. IN PARA 6 OF THE PETITION, IT HAS BEEN AVERRED THAT THE AO DID N OT GIVE A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 WILL BE INVOK ED AND THAT THE AO OUGHT NOT TO HAVE RESORTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 44 WITHOUT GIVING SUCH A NOTICE. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ORAL PRAYER FOR ADJOU RNMENT WAS MADE. SINCE NO PROPER GROUNDS WERE GIVEN FOR SEEKING ADJO URNMENT, THE SAME WAS REJECTED. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE MERITS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION, WE FIND THAT IN PARA 8 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS TO HOW THE INVOKING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT BY THE AO WERE VALID. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO TAKEN A VIEW THAT ONCE THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT ARE INVOKED, DISALLOWANCE OF REMUNERATION A ND INTEREST PAID TO PARTNERS IS NATURALLY COROLLARY. IN THE MISCELLANE OUS PETITION, PRAYER IS ONE OF SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT M.P. NO. 32/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 3 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWERS TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. THE POWER IS RESTRICTED ONLY TO RECTIFYING THE MISTAKES APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE ORDER. IN OUR VIEW, NO SUCH APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HA S BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE PETITION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS DIS MISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2014 . SD/- SD/- ( JASON P. BOAZ ) ( N.V. VASUDEVA N ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R BANGALORE, DATED, THE 26 TH SEPTEMBER , 2014 . /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.