Superfine Metals P Ltd, Ahmednagar V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle 1(2), , Pune

MA 355/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Superfine Metals Pvt. Ltd., which filed four Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) seeking to recall a consolidated order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune, which had dismissed their appeals under ITA No. 631 to 634/PUN/2021. The applications were based on eight grounds, which the Tribunal found did not indicate any 'apparent and obvious mistake' in the original order. The Tribunal reiterated that the purpose of section 254(2) is not to re-argue the case but to correct mistakes that are apparent from the record.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136292 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2022
• Other Referred Cases: TS Balram ITO Vs M/s Volkart Brothers
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

॥ आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण, पुणे “बी” न्यायपीठ, पुणे में ॥ ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI HON’BLE S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपऩल सं. / MA No. 352 to 355/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 631 to 634/PUN/2021) निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 to 2013-14 M/s Superfine Metals Pvt. Ltd. E29/E39, Supa MIDC, Tal-Parner-Ahmednagar - 414302 PAN : AAKCS6038H . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(2), Pune . . . . . . .प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri M K Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri Ramnath Murkunde सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 19/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 19/05/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; By this bunch of four Miscellaneous Applications [for short ‘MA’] the assessee sought our indulgence for recalling the consolidated order of this Tribunal passed u/s 254(1) of the Income Tax Act [for short ‘the Act’] dismissing the appeals of the assessee vide ITA No. 631 to 634/PUN/2021 dt. 07/10/2022 M/s. Superfine Metals Pvt.Ltd., MA No.352 to 355/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.631 to 634/PUN/2021) ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4 2. Since the substantive ground in all these MA’s are identical, with the agreement of parties present, are heard together for a consolidated order, resultantly the adjudication in MA/352/PUN/2022 positioned in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis mutandis apply to MA/PUN/353 to 355/PUN/2022. 3. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 [for short ‘ITAT, Rules’] perused the material placed on records and duly considered the facts of the case in the light of settled legal position forewarned to parties present. 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to MA application running into eight pages seeking our indulgence to re-adjudicate on almost all eight grounds laid without indicative therein existence of any apparent & obvious mistake. During the hearing also the Ld. AR has failed to pinpoint any ‘apparent mistake’ so has to support the admission of present applications. M/s. Superfine Metals Pvt.Ltd., MA No.352 to 355/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.631 to 634/PUN/2021) ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4 5. At the outset we note that, the Tribunal while dismissing the appeals of the appellant has considered all the grounds qua issues in the light of applicable provisions of section 143 r.w.s. 154 of the Act which has been sufficiently elaborated in its findings vis-à-vis reasoning at para 10 of the impugned order. It is needless to say that the Tribunal has considered the entire argument of the appellant assessee at the time of disposing of the case and now it is not possible to re- appreciate the same in the grab of rectification. 6. The scope and ambit of section 254(2) of the Act is very limited to rectification of mistakes apparent from record but otherwise to review or recall of any earlier order of the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act is impermissible. In our view the Tribunal cannot go into the merit of the appeal all over again as it is not within the scope of an application for rectification to re-argue the case and avail of a further chance where there is no mistake apparent on the fact of record. M/s. Superfine Metals Pvt.Ltd., MA No.352 to 355/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA No.631 to 634/PUN/2021) ITAT-Pune Page 4 of 4 7. In the set of facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the present MA and in the argument of the Ld. AR. In the absence of any obvious mistake in the impugned order brought to our notice, these miscellaneous applications of the assessee stands legless in the light of ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the landmark case of ‘TS Balram ITO Vs M/s Volkart Brothers’ reported in 82 ITR 50 (SC). 8. In result, all five MA’s of the appellant assessee are DISMISSED. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Friday 19 th day of May, 2023. -S/d- -S/d- S. S. GODARA G. D. PADMAHSHALI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / PUNE ; ददनाांक / Dated : 13th day of June, 2023. आदेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.अपीलाथी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT, (Central), Pune 4. The CIT(A)-11, Pune 5. DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. Ashwini आदेशानुसार / By Order, वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.