ITO, Barnala V. Sh. Iqbal Singh, Barnala

MA 33/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3821 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.33/CHD/2013 IN ITA NO.728/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. IQBAL SINGH, BARNALA. S/O SH.GURDEV SINGH, VILL. CHHANNA GULAB SINGH WALA, BARNALA. PAN: ---- (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING : 04.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.01.2016 O R D E R PER RANO JAIN, A.M . : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 17.10.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.728/CHD/2012. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSM ENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT WAS MADE AT AN INCOME OF RS.24,65,040/- PLUS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,25, 000/-, VIDE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 15.12.200 6. THE 2 APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS), VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 20.12.2007. THE I. T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH, ON AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) PARTLY VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2008 TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF RS.3,10,000/- IN BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENC H WAS MADE VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2009. PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE VI DE ORDER DATED 22.6.2010. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DAT ED 18.5.2012. ON AN APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITA NO.728/CHD/2012, THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH VID E ORDER DATED 17.10.2012 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THIS HA S BEEN HELD BY THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH AFTER REFERR ING TO ALL RELEVANT DATES AND ALSO RELYING ON THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF S/SHRI JASBIR SINGH, KARTAR SINGH AND AVTAR SIN GH IN ITA NOS.694, 695 & 292/CHD/2010, DATED 18.10.2010. THESE ORDERS WERE ALSO RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T. 3. THE REVENUE HAS NOW FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH. THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THOUGH THE PENALTY IN THE NORMAL CAUSE WAS TIM E 3 BARRED AS ON 31.3.2009 I.E. AFTER ONE YEAR FROM TH E END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A PPEALS) WAS PASSED, I.E. 20.12.2007. HOWEVER, SINCE BEFORE 31.3.2009, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEFORE HIM THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS VIDE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., CHAND IGARH BENCH DATED 31.12.2008 RECEIVED BY THE CIT (APPEALS ) ON 19.3.2009. AS SUCH, HE COULD NOT IMPOSE PENALTY BY 31.3.2009 WHEN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE BE FORE HIM. HOWEVER, HE HAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED PENALTY WITHI N SIX MONTHS (22.6.2010) AFTER PASSING RE-ASSESSMENT ORDE R DATED 24.12.2009. IN THIS VIEW, A PRAYER IS MADE TO RECALL AND RECONSIDER THE DECISION OF THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITA NO.728/CHD/2012, DATED 17.10.2012. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE VARIOUS ORDERS, WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD TO BE RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT THE I.T.A.T. CAN RECTI FY A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIR E ANY LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF LAW. THE I.T.A.T. DOES NOT P OSSESS THE POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. WHATEVER HAS BE EN STATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARE THE ARG UMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH COULD BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. CONSIDERING THESE AT THIS STAGE WOULD AMO UNT TO REVIEWING OUR OWN ORDER. THE ONLY REMEDY IN SUCH C ASES IS TO GO IN APPEAL TO THE HIGHER FORUM, I.E. THE HI GH COURT. 4 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAK E APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., CHANDIGARH BENCH. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (RANO JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 4 TH JANUARY, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH