DCIT, Central Circle -2 (1), Pune V. Agarwal Group Corporate Holding P. Ltd., Pune

MA 45/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9345 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE; KA U S HAL KUMAR
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , JM M .A. NO. 45 /PUN/20 19 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1667/PUN/2015 ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 - 08 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), PUNE. .. /APPLICANT / V/S. M/S. AGARWAL GROUP CORPORATE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. MZSK & ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 3, BUSINESS BAY, PLOT NO.84, WELLESLEY ROAD, NEAR RTO, PUNE - 411 001. PAN: AACCK8705D .. / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV THAKKAR REVENUE BY : SHRI KAUSHAL KUMAR & SHRI S.P. WALIMBE / DATE OF HEARING : 10.01.2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 .01.2020 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY, JM : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENUE U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) SEEKING REVIEWING OF ITS OWN ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1667/PUN/2015 DATED 29.11.2018 . 2 M A NO. 45 /PUN/20 19 A.Y. 2007 - 08 2. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT O UT ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR BASICALLY IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF M/S. ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA - II, CI VIL APPEAL NO. 4228 OF 2006 WHICH IS WITH RESPECT TO CENTRAL EXCISE ACT & RULES AND IGNORING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M. PIRAI CHOODI (2012) 20 TAXMAN.COM 733(SC) WHICH DEALS DIRECTLY WITH INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THER EFORE, THE LD. DR PRAYED THAT THE ISSUE OF NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WITH THE MEANING OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29.11.2018 IS WELL REASONED AND THE SAME DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY REVIEW OR RECTIFICATION. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS FAIL ED TO POINT OUT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER WARRANTING RECTIFICATION. THE REVENUE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE ORDER IN THE GRAB OF RECTIFICATION WHICH IS BASICALLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT . THE LD. AR PRAYED FOR DISMISSING TH E MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1667/PUN/2015 DATED 29.11.2018 IS BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (SUPRA.) . WE ALSO FIND THAT T HERE ARE S ERIES OF DECISIONS BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS HON'BLE HIGH COURT EXPOUNDING SCOPE OF EXERCISING 3 M A NO. 45 /PUN/20 19 A.Y. 2007 - 08 POWERS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO RECITE AND RECAPITULATE ALL OF THEM, BUT SUFFICE TO SAY THAT CORE OF ALL THESE AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS IS THAT POWER FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN MISTAKE, WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED, IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLIS HED BY ARGUMENTS AND LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS, ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. FOR FORTIFYING THIS VIEW, WE MAKE REFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH ST OCK EXCHANGE LD., 262 ITR 146 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 305 ITR 227. 5 . THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC & TRADING COMPANY REPORTED AS 203 ITR 497 HAS HELD THAT THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) IS LIMITED TO RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD ITSELF AND NOT RECTIFICATION IN ERROR OF JUDGMENT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER: THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT, IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF RECTIFICATIO N, LOOK INTO SOME OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION SO ARRIVED AT. THE MISTAKE WHICH THE TRIBUNAL IS ENTITLED TO CORRECT IS NOT AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT BUT A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD ITSELF. WE ARE OF CON SIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION, THE REVENUE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF POWERS AS ENVISAGED U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. 6 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND AS PER THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BEFORE US, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE, MUCH LESS ANY APPARENT MISTAKE THAT 4 M A NO. 45 /PUN/20 19 A.Y. 2007 - 08 WARRANTS RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 29.11.2018. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS OWN WISDOM HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (SUPRA.) AND ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS MENTIONED AFORESAID. ACCORDINGLY, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 7 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020. SD/ - SD/ - ANIL CHATURVEDI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 10 TH JANUARY, 2020. SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) - 12, PUNE. 4. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE. 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 5 M A NO. 45 /PUN/20 19 A.Y. 2007 - 08 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 10.01.2020 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10.01.2020 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER