THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD, V. ADDL CIT (LTU),

MA 360/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0931 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SINGH

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI . !', #$% .. & , '( )& , ' % BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI R.S.SYAL, AM ** ')' ./ MA NO.466/MUM/2011, MA NO.360/MUM/2012 AND MA NO.361/MUM/2012 ( ' #,- . / ARISING OUT OF M.A. NO. 10/MUM/2010) THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LIMITED 612, RAHEJA CHAMBERS 213, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400 021. PAN : AAACT1344F. THE ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT (LTU) 29 TH FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTRE-1 CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI 400 005. ( ') / // / APPLICANT) ' ' ' ' / VS. ( /012/ RESPONDENT) ') 3 33 3 4 ' 4 ' 4 ' 4 ' / APPLICANT BY : SHRI NITESH JOSHI /012 3 4 ' 3 4 ' 3 4 ' 3 4 ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P.SINGH ' 3 -( / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 13.09.2013. 5 6 3 -( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.09.2013. )'7 )'7 )'7 )'7 / / / / O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL, AM : THESE THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS U/S.254(2) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 HAVE BEEN MOVED BY THE ASSESSE E PRAYING FOR THE RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATE D 14 TH MAY, 2010 PASSED U/S 254(2) IN M.A. NO. 10/MUM/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.904, 867 AND 868 /M/2005FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSES SMENT YEARS. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED MISTAKE IN MENTIONING WRONG ITA NOS. WHILE MA NOS.466/M/2011, 360 & 361/M/2012 M/S.THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. 2 DISPOSING OFF MA NO.10/MUM/2010. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE NECESSARY CORRECTION SHOULD BE DONE. 3. IT WAS NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING THAT THE ASSESSEE EARLIER FILED ONLY ONE MA IN RESPECT OF THREE ASSES SMENT YEARS, WHICH HAS BEEN IMPUGNED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, WHIC H ITSELF IS CONTRARY TO LAW. ATTENTION OF THE LD. AR WAS INVIT ED TOWARDS AN ORDER DATED 09.01.2013 PASSED BY THE MUMBAI BENCH IN MRS. NAZNEEN SAGIR DOND VS. DCIT IN MA NO.377/MUM/2010 & ORS (T O WHICH THE LD. VP IS PARTY) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THA T SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR EACH YEAR ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED AGAINST A COMBINED ORDER, FAILING WHICH THE ORDER SO ERRONEOUSLY PASS ED IS BAD IN LAW. THE LEARNED AR UNSUCCESSFULLY TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THAT ORDER BY CONTENDING THAT ONE ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED B Y THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME CAN NOT BE NOW CALLED INTO QUESTION. 4. IN THE OPPOSITION, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE LAW WHICH PERMITS A PARTY TO FILE A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AGAINST T HE ORDER PASSED U/S 254(2). FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE RELIED ON THE JUDGM ENT OF THE HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PRESIDENT ITAT & ORS. [(1992) 196 ITR 838 (ORISSA)] . 5. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT MISCEL LANEOUS MA NOS.466/M/2011, 360 & 361/M/2012 M/S.THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. 3 APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SUSTAINA BLE DUE TO FOLLOWING REASONS:- (I) THERE CAN BE NO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION U/S 254(2) AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 254(2). THE HONBLE OR ISSA HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE QUOTED CASE HAS CATEGORICALLY HE LD THAT THE RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) CAN BE DONE ONLY AGAINST A N ORDER PASSED U/S 254(1) AND NOT 254(2). SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN CANVASSED IN SEVERAL OTHER CASES AS WELL. SINCE THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED IN RELAT ION TO THE ORDER PASSED U/S 254(2), THE SAME ARE NOT SUSTAINAB LE AT THE VERY THRESHOLD. (II) IT CAN BE OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE C OMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WAS THE ASS ESSEE ITSELF WHO MENTIONED THESE THREE ITA NUMBERS IN THE APPLIC ATION FILED U/S 254(2). THOSE THREE ITA NUMBERS WERE ADOPTED A S SUCH IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THUS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE WAS, IN FACT, A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. T HE PROCEEDINGS U/S 254(2) ARE MEANT FOR RECTIFYING A M ISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND NOT BY THE PARTIES. IF THE PARTIES ARE ALLOWED TO FILE MISCELL ANEOUS APPLICATIONS FOR THEIR OWN MISTAKES, THEN IN EVERY CASE ONE PARTY OR THE OTHER WOULD COME UP FILING A MISCELLAN EOUS APPLICATION CONTENDING THAT HE COMMITTED SUCH AND S UCH MISTAKE IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE CASE AND AS SUCH THE ORDER BE MA NOS.466/M/2011, 360 & 361/M/2012 M/S.THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. 4 RECALLED ENABLING HIM TO REARGUE THE CASE CORRECTLY . ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOW SEEKING TO RECTIFY IS THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY IT AND NOT BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS FACTUAL ASPECT ABOUT THE WRON G MENTIONING OF THE ITA NOS. IN THE ORIGINAL M.A. WAS DULY ADMIT TED BY THE LD. AR AS WELL. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THESE MISCELLANEO US APPLICATIONS, WHICH ARE LIABLE TO BE AND ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 7. 8 -9 ') 3 ** ')' (8: 3 :- !; IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH SEPTEMBER , 2013. )'7 3 5 6 <)'9 3 = SD/- SD/- (D.MANMOHAN) (R.S.SYAL) #$% / VICE PRESIDENT '( )& '( )& '( )& '( )& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; <)' DATED : 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. DEVDAS* MA NOS.466/M/2011, 360 & 361/M/2012 M/S.THE SUPREME INDUSTRIES LTD. 5 )'7 3 />-?* @'*6- )'7 3 />-?* @'*6- )'7 3 />-?* @'*6- )'7 3 />-?* @'*6-/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ') / THE APPLICANT. 2. /012 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. A () / THE CIT(A) - XXIV, MUMBAI. 4. A / CIT 5. *D= />->' , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. = E / GUARD FILE. )'7' )'7' )'7' )'7' / BY ORDER, 0*- />- //TRUE COPY// # # # #/ // /! : ! : ! : ! : ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI