M/s. Industrial Filters & Fabrics Pvt.Ltd., Indore V. The ACIT, Indore

MA 44/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4480 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 44/IND/09 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 734/IND/09 M/S INDUSTRIAL FILTERS & FABRICS PVT. LTD INDORE PAN AAACI-03900J APPLICANT VS ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX 5(1) INDORE RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL RESPONDENT BY SMT. APARNA KARAN O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THROUGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSE E IS SEEKING RECALL OR SUITABLE MODIFICATION IN THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 28 TH AUGUST, 2009 IN ITA NO. 734/IND/2007. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE CONTRADICTIO NS IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS IN PARA 4.2 AT PAGE 2 THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED NECESSARY DETAILS WITH THE CIT(A) TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSI TOR. THE 2 LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 6 AT PAGE 3 OF THE ORDER WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE DEPOSITOR WAS ADMITTEDLY DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF THE DIR ECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREAFTER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE ANY OF THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, WHEN HIS ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT AT THE MOST, THE ASSESSEE COULD CLAIM THAT IDENTITY HA D BEEN PROVED, HOWEVER, THE OTHER TWO CONDITIONS I.E. GENU INENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSIT REMAINED UNPROVED, HENCE, ON THESE TWO CONDITIONS, IF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION WAS ADMITTED THEN IT WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW, AND, HE NCE, THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSE D. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EFFECTIV ELY REPLY TO THIS QUESTION. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, REITERATED TH E POSITION EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BY THE BENCH. 3 4. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS LIA BLE TO BE DISMISSED AS IT IS IN THE REALM OF REVIEW OF EARLIE R ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26 TH MARCH, 2010 SD SD (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER 26 TH MARCH, 2010 COPY TO APPLICANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GUA RD FILE D/-