KANTILAL GOPAL KOTECH, V. ITO 8(2)(4),

MA 335/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2406 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMINDER KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPUL J SHAH; BHARAT L GANDHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 335/MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6903/MUM/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. :- AAFPK 5229 G ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIPUL J. SHAH & BHARAT L. GANDHI REVENUE BY : SMT. PARMINDER KAUR DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.08.2014 O R D E R PER DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECALL/RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.06.2014 PASSE D IN ITA NO. 6903/MUM/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE IMPUGNED RECTIFICA TION ARE REQUIRED TO BE DONE QUA THE ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL ON THE ISSUE OF TREATMENT OF GOOD-WILL GENERATED ON CONVERSION OF PROPRIETARY CONCERN INTO A LIMITED COMPANY IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 47(XIV) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE ARE SOME MISTAKES APPEARING AT PARA 3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.06.2014 WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND VITIATED THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ALLEGED MISTAKES POINTED OUT B Y THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT: (I) THE CONCLUSION OF THE BENCH THAT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT THE ADDITIONAL SHARE CAPITAL A LLOTMENT OF RS.2,29,84,701/- SHRI KANTILAL GOPALJI KOTECHA 1, SANSKAR ROAD NO. 8, GROUND FLOOR, JVPD SCHEME, VILE PARLE (WEST) MUMBAI 400 049 VS. ITO-8(2)(4) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI- 400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) M.A. NO. 335/MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 6903/MUM/2012) SHRI KANTILAL GOPALJI KOTECHA ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2 WITHOUT BRINGING ANYTHING TO THE ASSIGNEE IS FACTU ALLY INCORRECT, (II) THE TRIBUNAL HAS WRONGLY DISTINGUISHED THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE REPORTED IN 143 ITT 132 AND 47 SOT 207, (III) THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO AP PRECIATE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONCEPT OF AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETARY CONCER N WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF THE ARGUMENT, THE COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED VARIOUS JUDGMENTS AND CONTENDED THAT NOT FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENTS WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE IS MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE R ECORD. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR HAS STRONGLY OPPOSED THE MOVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED THE SAME CANNOT BE PERMITTED AS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS INTEN DED TO REOPEN THE ARGUMENT ON THE WHOLE MATTER WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE T RIBUNAL U/S 254 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MISTAKES ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 06.06.2014 ARE NOT MIST AKES APPARENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 254(2) AND IN FACT THE ASSESSEE INTENDS A R EVISION/REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE SAID PRO VISION. IN VIEW OF THAT MATTER, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 0 8 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 18.08.2014 *SRIVASTAVA COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR A BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.