DCIT, New Delhi V. AR Loomtex India (P) Ltd., New Delhi

MA 343/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8678 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH
• Keywords: Audit objection; Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.343/DEL/2011 (IN ITA NO.3787/DEL./2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) DCIT, CIRCLE 2 (1), VS. AR LOOMTEX INDIA (P) LTD. , NEW DELHI. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AR LOOMTEX (INDIA) LTD.), MANGLAM PLACE, SECTOR 3, ROHINI, DELHI. (PAN : AAACA6934E) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT/ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANU MONGA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH, DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE REVENUE UNDE R SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE REVENUE HAS PRAYED T HAT THE TAX EFFECT WAS BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT AS PER INSTRUCTION NO.5/20 08 OF CBDT BUT THE CASE FALLS UNDER EXCEPTION LAID DOWN AT PARA NO.8(C) IN INSTRUCTION NO.5/2008 OF CBDT AS THE REVENUE AUDIT OBJECTION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THE ISSUE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. ADMITTEDL Y, THE TAX EFFECT WAS BELOW RS.2 LACS. NOW THE REVENUE CLAIMS THAT THE CASE FA LLS UNDER THE EXCEPTION LAID MA NO.343/DEL/2011 (IN ITA NO.3787/DEL./2010 2 DOWN IN THE AFORESAID INSTRUCTION, BUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NOTHING WAS POINTED OUT IN THIS REGARD THAT THE CAS E FALLS UNDER THE EXCEPTION TO THE INSTRUCTION NO.5/2008. THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE FROM THE RECORDS. ITAT HAS POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RE CORD. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER WHICH DESERVES TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. KEEPING THESE FACTS IN VIEW, WE DISMISS THIS REVENUES MISC. APPL ICATION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF JULY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 31 ST DAY OF JULY, 2012 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-V, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.