Sprysoft Technologies Private Limited , Hyderabad V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-16, Hyderabad

MA 44/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5818 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2021
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “A” : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.44/HYD/2021 (Arising out of ITA No.479/Hyd/2020) Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/s.Sprysoft Technologies Pvt.Ltd., HYDERABAD [PAN: AAJCS9496G] Vs Dy.CIT, Circle-16, HYDERABAD (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri A.V.Raghuram, AR For Revenue : Shri P.Sumitha, DR Date of Hearing : 17-12-2021 Date of Pronouncement : 22-12-2021 O R D E R PER BENCH : This assesseee’s Miscellaneous Application filed u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’] seeks to recall/rectify tribunal’s order dt.05-04-2021 dismissing the main case ITA No.479/Hyd/2020 on the ground that its learned counsel had made a statement for having approached for settlement benefit under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Viswas Scheme, 2020 by filing Form-3 thereunder. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Learned counsel at the outset quotes hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision in M/s.Federal Mogul Goetze (India) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2021) 112 CCH 84 (Del High Court) that our foregoing MA No. 44/Hyd/2021 :- 2 -: order needs to be recalled since the assessee has not availed the settlement benefit contemplated under the foregoing scheme and it was a mere communication gap which makes its instant Miscellaneous Application allowable. We find no merit in the assessee’s stand since their lordships have already dealt with an instance involving some mistake on the part of the concerned assessee’s counsel whereas our order makes it apparent that the assessee/its learned counsel had clearly stated to have filed Forms-I and II followed by issuance of Form-3 under the settlement scheme (supra). We quote hon'ble apex court’s landmark decision in ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Stock Exchange Ltd. 305 ITR 227 (SC) and hold that the assessee’s instant Miscellaneous Application tends to make us re-visit review the factual findings already recorded not permissible in law. We also refer to their lordships latest decision in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Reliance Telecom Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos.7110 & 7111 of 2021 vide order dt.03-12-2021. The assessee’s instant Miscellaneous Application deserved to be rejected as our order cannot be stated to be suffering from any apparent mistake on record therefore. 3. This assessee’s Miscellaneous Application is dismissed in foregoing terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 22 nd December, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (S.S.GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 22-12-2021 TNMM MA No. 44/Hyd/2021 :- 3 -: Copy to : 1.M/s.Sprysoft Technologies Pvt.Ltd., B-408, Usha Enclave, 8-3-833/A, Navodaya Colony, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. 2.The Dy.CIT, Circle-16, Hyderabad. 3.CIT(Appeals)-3, Hyderabad. 4.Pr.CIT-3, Hyderabad. 5.D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad. 6.Guard File.