CORE JEWELLERY P. LTD, V. DCIT 8(1)(2),

MA 334/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2700 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAVAN KUMAR BEER LA
• Assessee Lawyers: B V JAVERI

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI . . , ! # $$ ! % BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA,ACCOUNTNT MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY GARG ,JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.334/MUM/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.8366/MUM/2011, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 M/S. CORE JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. GJ-04, SDF VII, SEEPZ, ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI. / VS. THE DCIT 8(1), MUMBAI !& ./ #' ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCC 1946P (APPLICANT) .. RESPONDENT ) APPLICANT BY SHRI B.V.JAVERI RESPONDENT BY SHRI PAVAN KUMAR BEERLA ( )* / DATE OF HEARING : 23/01/2015 +,- ( )* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/01/2015 . / O R D E R PER N.K.BILLAIYA, A.M: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.8366/MUM/2011 DATED 27/2/2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE AC T ON THE INCOMES WHICH WERE DERIVED FROM THE EXPORT BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY TH E ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE SAID PROFITS ARE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10A OF THE ACT. M.A. NO.334/MUM/2014 2 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND POIN TED OUT THAT THE FACTUAL DETAILS WERE VERY MUCH BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND T HE SAME DETAILS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARIN G. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE F ACTUAL DETAILS IN THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO A MISTAKE APPA RENT FROM THE RECORD WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY STATED THAT WHAT THE COUNSEL IS STATING WAS NEVER ARGUED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AT THIS STAGE. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HAVE CARE FULLY PERUSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE ORDER OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.8366/MUM/2011. WE FIND THAT ON THE GIVEN SET OF FACTS BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE CATEGORICA LLY STATED THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT PARA-10 OF ITS ORDER AND HE LD THAT THE CASE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS IDENTICAL TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AN D THEREAFTER THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED . 5. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH FOR ASSESSMENT 2 004-05. FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE US WITH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE LD. COUNSEL HAS RAISED THE ISSUE THAT THE FACT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AR E NOT PARI-MATERIA TO THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THIS PLEA CANNOT MAKE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ERRONEOUS NOR IT CA N BRING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED. THE HONBLE HI GH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. 203 ITR 497 (BOM) HAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN O RDERS AND ONLY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD CAN BE RECTIFIED, FAILURE TO C ONSIDER ARGUMENTS IS NOT AN M.A. NO.334/MUM/2014 3 ERROR APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REDECIDE THE MATTER. DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/01/20 15 . . ( ,- / 0 1 28/01/2015 , ( $ SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG ) (N.K.BILLAIYA) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 0 DATED 28/01/2015 . . . . ( (( ( 2) 2) 2) 2) 3-) 3-) 3-) 3-) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &4 / THE APPELLANT 2. 25&4 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 6 / CIT 5. 7$ 2) , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. $8 9 / GUARD FILE. . . . . / BY ORDER, 5) 2) //TRUE COPY// : :: : / ; ; ; ; # # # # (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI . . RJ