ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LTD, V. ASST CIT 2(1),

MA 395/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2694 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JEETENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWIN S CHHAG

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND VIVEK VARMA, (JM) . . , , MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.395/MUM/2014 (ARISING OUT OF #$ ./I.T.A. NO.7028/MUM/2012) ( %& ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) ASTEC LIFE SCIENCES LIMITED, ELITE SQUARE, 7 TH FLOOR, 274, PERIN NARIMAN STREET, MUMBAI-400001 / VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1), MUMBAI ( #$() / APPELLANT) .. ( *+() / RESPONDENT) ( ./ ,- ./PAN/GIR NO. :AAACA4832D #$() . / APPELLANT BY S/SHRI ASHWIN S CHHAG *+() / . /RESPONDENT BY SHRI JEETENDRA KUMAR 0 1 / 23 / DATE OF HEARING : 16.1.2015 45'& / 23 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :16.1.2015 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER DATED 27.8.2014 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES CASE REQUIRES MODIFICATION. 2. THE LD. AR APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONF IRMING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN REFUSING TO CONDONE THE DELAY. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE FACTUAL DETAILS IN THE PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO NOT FOLLOWED THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS H IGH COURTS IN THIS MA 395/M/2014 2 REGARD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NON CONSIDERATIO N OF THE DECISION OF APEX COURT AND THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CAN SA ID TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LIMITE D (2008) 173 TAXMANN 322(SC). ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD QUOTED MANY DECISIONS AT THE TIME OF HEARING AN D THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THEM. ACCORDINGLY, HE PRAYED TH AT THE IMPUGN ORDER MAY KINDLY BE RECALLED. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE T RIBUNAL, U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, HAS ONLY LIMITED POWERS, I.E., IT CAN R ECTIFY ONLY MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL DETAILS AVAILABLE O N RECORD AND ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW A RE ASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD , WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND HENCE THIS PETITION S HOULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD . AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR, THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2 ) OF THE ACT IS LIMITED, I.E., IT CAN ONLY CORRECT THE MISTAKES APPARENT FRO M RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. WE N OTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN THIS PETITION, HAS POINTED OUT THE FAC TUAL DETAILS RELATING TO DEMAND OF TAX ETC AND ALSO CITED CASE LAWS WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE RELATING TO CONDONATION OF DELAY. HOWEVER, T HE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD SHOW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARAS 9 AND 10 OF THE ORDER. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACTUA L DETAILS NOTED DOWN BY MA 395/M/2014 3 THE TRIBUNAL. INSTEAD THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN NARRAT ING CERTAIN EVENTS WHICH WERE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE CONSIDERATION OF THESE FACTS MIGHT POSSIBLY BE LED TO REVIEW OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT EMPOWERED TO DO. UNDER THESE SET OF FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MA FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.1.2015 45'& 0 6 78 16 TH JAN,2015 5 / 91 : SD SD ( / VIVEK VARMA) ( . . / B.R. BASKARAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 0 1 MUMBAI: 16 TH JAN, 2015. . . ./ SRL , SR. PS !'# $#%! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #$() / THE APPELLANT 2. *+() / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 ;2 ( #$ ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. 0 ;2 / CIT CONCERNED 5. <9 *2=% , #$3 #=%& , 0 1 / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 6. 9> ?1 / GUARD FILE. @ 0 / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY A $, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) #$3 #=%& , 0 1 /ITAT, MUMBAI