Shikha Textiles Pvt. Ltd., Meerut V. CIT, Meerut

MA 456/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case revolves around a miscellaneous application filed by M/s Shikha Textiles Pvt. Ltd. under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking to recall an earlier Tribunal order dated 27.04.2018. The assessee argued that the Tribunal had inadvertently not adjudicated ground no. 2 and part of ground no. 7 in their appeal, which they claimed was a mistake apparent from the records. The Departmental Representative opposed this, arguing that the Tribunal had considered all grounds and that the application was essentially seeking a review of the order, which is not permissible. The Tribunal examined the arguments and the original order and concluded that the grounds in question had been considered and adjudicated, thus dismissing the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112938 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 263; 254(2)

Judgement Text

1 MA No. 456/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G (Friday) ”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 456/Del/2018 ITA No. _3056/DEL/2013 [Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s Shikha Textiles Pvt. Ltd., 14, Janta Nagar, Garh Road, Meerut. PAN- AABCS9551J Vs CIT, Meerut APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Sh. R.K. Garg, Adv. Department represented by Sh. Ramdhan Meena, DR Date of hearing 13.01.2023 Date of pronouncement 16.03.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: By this misc. application u/s 254(2) of the income-tax Act, 1961, the assessee seeks to recall the Tribunal’s order dated 27.04.2018 passed in ITA no. 3056/Del/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09. 2 MA No. 456/Del/2018 2. Learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made in the misc. application and submitted that the Tribunal inadvertently did not adjudicate ground no. 2 and partly ground no. 7. He submitted that the non-adjudication of these grounds tantamount to mistake apparent from records. He prayed that eh order dated 27.04.2016 may be recalled for adjudication of these grounds. 3. On the other hand, learned DR opposed these submissions and submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record. He contended that the Tribunal has considered all averments and grounds raised by assessee. Now by way present application the assessee is seeking to review of order which is not permissible under law. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on records. The assessee is seeking for recalling of order on account of non- adjudication of ground no. 2 and part of ground no. 7. For the sake of clarity ground no. 2 and 7 are reproduced below:- “2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT, Meerut was not justified to estimate net profit at Rs. 48,32,725/- after applying net profit rate at 5% and adding other income at 2,10,036/-. The estimation of net income after brushing aside the detailed explanation, book produced before A.O. and CIT, and computation, is arbitrary, unjust, uncalled-for, illegal and in any case highly excessive. 3 MA No. 456/Del/2018 7. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT has erred to estimate net profit and direct to make further enquiries on point no. (b) to (h) of notice, which were already enquired and verified in details by learned A.O. The finding is arbitrary, unjust and uncalled for and in any case illegal.” 5. We find qua these grounds the Tribunal in para nos. 11 & 12 of its order has observed as under: “11. So far as addition of Rs.48,32,725/- made by Id. CIT by estimating the net profit rate at 5% after rejecting the books of account are concerned, there is not an iota of discussion made by the AO regarding the facts that the assessee has not maintained stock register and as such, auditor has not given the quantitive details and left all the columns of para 28(a) of form 3CD blank and the tax auditor report in Para D of para 32 regarding calculation of accounting ratio between material consumed and finished goods stage is not applicable. No doubt, GP/NP ratio depends on numerous factors and cannot be the same for all the years, but to examine the correctness of the quantitative details relied upon by the assessee, the same is required to be brought on record before AO. Tax Audit report itself shows that complete quantitative details were not there. 12. So, all these facts go to prove that the AO has accepted the accounts of the assessee without requiring the supporting material and without making any enquiry. So, the ld. CIT has rightly invoked the provisions contained u/s 263 of the Act, assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue.” 6. Therefore, it is not the case where the grounds have not been considered and not adjudicated. Now re-adjudicating the same would tantamount to reviewing of order, which is beyond the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act. We do not find any 4 MA No. 456/Del/2018 merit into the contention of the assessee. Hence, miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is hereby dismissed. 7. Misc. application of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 16 th March, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI