SEA SCAN MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED , GOA V. DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -9, MUMBAI

MA 350/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6240 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M V RAJGURU
• Assessee Lawyers: AMAR GAHLOT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH E, MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 350/MUM/2017 IN ITA NO.7086/MUM/2014 A Y : 2010-11 M/S SEA SCAN MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD., COMPOUND, ST. INEZ PANAJI, GOA-403001 PAN: AADCS4236J VS. DCIT, CC-9 OLD CGO BUILDING, MUMBAI-400020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMAR GAHLOT( AR) REVENUE BY : M.V. RAJGUR U (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 16.02.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 16.02.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) IS DIRECTED BY ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATIONS OF MISTAKE IN ORDER DATED 08.03.2017 IN ITA NO. 7086/MUM/2014 FOR AY 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE IN IT AP PLICATION CONTENDED THAT WHILE MAKING SUBMISSION, THE FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WAS POINTED OUT, HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS N OT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. IT IS FURTHER CON TENDED THAT AT THE TIME OF MAKING SUBMISSION, THE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASS OCIATION OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS FURNISHED. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUN AL HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCI ATION. THUS, THERE IS GRAVE FACTUAL ERROR ON THE PART OF TRIBUNAL. THE AS SESSEE PRAYED THAT ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED ON THE SIMILAR LI NE AS CONTENDED IN THE MA 350/M /17- M/S SEA SCAN MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 2 MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO ERROR APPARENT IN THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER IS PASSED AFTER CONSIDERING THE ALL FACTU AL AND LEGAL SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT THE T RIBUNAL HAS TAKEN VIEW WHILE ADJUDICATING ISSUE AND THE SAME CANNOT B E REVIEWED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PART IES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED ON 08.03.20178. THE PERUSA L OF ORDER REVEALS THAT ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER CONSIDERING ALL FACTUAL AND LEGAL SUBMISSION URGED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY IN ITS APPLICATION PLEADED THAT MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIAT ION OF ASSESSEE WAS HANDED OVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. W E HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE MAIN APPEAL/CASE. NO SUCH COPY OF MEM ORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSEE WAS FURNISHED. SIMILARLY, T HE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS N OT PROVIDED TO THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSES SEE FAILS TO DEMONSTRATE THE MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER. 4. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FIL ED COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSEES COMPANY ALO NG WITH THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (PAGE 24 TO 35). THE LD. AR FAILED TO CONVINCE US, IF THE COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATI ON OF ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS FILED ON RECORD DURING THE HEARING OF M AIN APPEAL, AS TO WHY, A FRESH COPY OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF A SSESSEE-COMPANY IS PLACED ON RECORD. WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT T HERE IS NO MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION ON RECORD, THE LD. AR SUB MITTED THAT LENGTHY ARGUMENT TOOK PLACE DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL A PPELLATE PROCEEDING REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES LTD. (SUPRA). THOUGH, THE LD. AR COULD NOT SHOW THAT THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION WAS PRESENTED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING. MA 350/M /17- M/S SEA SCAN MARINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 3 THE POWERS GRANTED TO THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) IS RESTRICTED TO RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER. IT CANNOT REVIEW ITS ORDER UNDER THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 254 (2) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT ENTITLE D TO EXAMINE FRESH MATERIAL IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN VIEW WHILE ADJUDICATING ISSUE AN D THE SAME CANNOT BE REVIEWED. WE FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DR . ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 254(2) OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE DO NO T FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TH IS 16 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 16/02 /2018 S.K.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. !'# / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/