M/s Shetty constructions, Gulbarga V. Deputy commissioner of Income tax, Gulbarga

MA 37/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4646 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH A BEFORE S HRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. PETITION NO.37/BANG/2014 (IN W .T . A. NO. 1166/BANG /20 13) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 07 - 08 ) M/S. SHETTY CO NSTRUCTIONS, NO.G - 1,SIDDHARTH PLAZA, SHETTY ENCLAVE, ALNAD ROAD, GULBARGA. . PETITIONER . VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, GULBARGA . .. RESPONDENT. PETITIONER BY : NONE. R E SPONDENT BY : DR.P.K. SRIHARI, ADDL. CIT (D.R.) DATE OF H EARING : 8.7.2016. DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 11.8 .201 6 . O R D E R PER SHRI VIJAY P AL RAO, J .M . : BY WAY OF THIS MISC. PETITION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION IN THE ORD E R DT.10.3.2014 OF THIS TRIBUNAL. NONE H AS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE MISC. PETITION WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. 2 M.P. NO.37/ BANG/201 4 2. IT TRANSPIRES THAT EVEN ON THE EARLIER DATE OF HEARING ON 29.4.2016, NONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED FOR TODAY I.E. 8.7.2016 WITH THE DIRECTION TO ISSUE A NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE THE REPEATED ADJOURNMENTS AND NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR WHEN THIS M.P. WAS CALLED FOR HEARING. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE PRESENT M.P. 3. EVEN OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE IS ASSAILING THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREBY THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 142 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WAS ALSO LEFT OPEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. THUS THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF THIS MP IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE EARLIER ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AS THE SCOPE AND JURISDICTION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IS LIMITED AND CIRCUMSCRIBED. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT RE - APPR E CIATE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE PA S SING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FUR T HER A MISTAKE WHICH I S APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER THE 3 M.P. NO.37/ BANG/201 4 PROVISIONS OF SECTI O N 254 AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN REASONING AND ARGUMENT AS IN THE PRESENT CASE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A MP OF 12 PAGES. THUS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND IT A FIT CASE FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE MISC. PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. PETITION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 11TH DAY OF AUG. , 201 6 . SD/ - ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER * REDDY GP COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE