M/s. Vraj & Vaj Construction, JAMNAGAR V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, JAMNAGAR

MA 36/RJT/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5454 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E COURT AT AHMEDABAD] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO.36/RJT/2011 IN ITA NO.3799/AHD/1996 / ASSTT.YEAR : 1991-92 M/S.VRAJ AND VRAJ CONSTRUCTION NANADANVAN SOCIETY JAMNAGAR. VS. ACIT, CIR.JAMNAGAR JAMNAGAR. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MEHUL RANPURA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 19/08/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/08/2019 .// O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 19.11.2008 PASSED IN ITA NO.3799/AHD/1996. 2. IT MERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS ENGAGED IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK. IT USED TO CAR RY OUT MAINLY GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. IN ORDER TO SET OFF PROFIT IN THE CONST RUCTION ACTIVITY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED LOSS IN GARLIC TRADE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS.3,46,416/- AFTER SET OFF OF A BUSINESS LOSS OF G ARLIC TRADING OF RS.3,80,117/-. THIS TRADE IN THE GARLIC WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE RE VENUE AUTHORITIES, AND THE MA NO.36/RJT/2011 2 VIEW OF THE AO MET APPROVAL OF THE TRIBUNAL ALSO. BY WAY OF PRESENT MA, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE EFFORT TO GET THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL REVIEWED BY CONTENDING THAT EVIDENCE RELIED UPON BY THE TRIBUNA L IS THE STATEMENT OF CERTAIN WITNESSES WHICH WAS RECORDED FROM THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SEC TION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE, WHICH I S SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED, IS AN OBVIOUS PATENT MISTAKE, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM T HE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARG UMENTS AND LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS, ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. 4. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WOULD SHOW THAT THE TRIB UNAL HAS GONE THROUGH ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS BEFORE CONCURRING WITH THE C ONCLUSIONS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPAR ENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, HENCE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MA OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 20 TH AUGUST, 2019 AT AHMEDABAD. S D / - (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/08/2019