Shri G.Babu, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

MA 47/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7993 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VI KRAMADITYA
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO.47 /MDS/2 012 (IN ITA NO. 1585/MDS/2011) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) SHRI G.BABU, C/O. SHRI K.LEELA KRISHNAN, 995/B-5, GNANALAKSHMI BUILDING, METTUPALAYAM ROAD,R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE-641 002. PAN:AMNPB0185C VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III(2), COIMBATORE. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : MR. VIK RAMADITYA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 25 TH MAY, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 TH MAY, 2012 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE APPLICANT/ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 1 4 TH MARCH, 2012, WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMIS SED. THE MISC. PETITION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE APPLICANT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE ARE MISTAKES APPARENT ON RECORD, WHICH REQUIRE RECTIFICATION. M.P.NO. 47/MDS/2012 2 2. NONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. WE HAVE HEARD THE D.R. AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS O F THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS IN BOTH THE CASES. 3. MR. VIKRAMADITYA, JCIT APPEARING ON BEHALF OF TH E DEPARTMENT CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE EITHE R OF LAW OR ON FACTS IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE BENCH HA S DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTENTION S ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE D.R., WHETHER THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS RIGHT IN LAW OR N OT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE TR IBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO REVIEW AND THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHI NG BUT A REVIEW PETITION. 4. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANE OUS PETITION. IN THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE, THE APPLICANT IS PRAYING FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER AND REMANDING TH E MATTER FOR DECIDING AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE HAD RELIED UPON CERTA IN DOCUMENTS WHICH HE WANTED TO PLACE ON RECORD BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF FINAL ADJUDICATION OF THE A PPEAL. WE M.P.NO. 47/MDS/2012 3 HAD GIVEN THE REASONS VIDE ORDER DATED 14 TH MARCH, 2012 FOR NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DOCUMENTS (PHOTOC OPIES OF CERTAIN BILLS) ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH IS OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE IN TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE MERE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS N OT ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO PLACE ON RECORD THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE BILLS, THE REASONS FOR WHICH WERE MADE CLEAR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE MISCELL ANEOUS PETITION FOR RE-APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. 5. THE APPLICANT HAS RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF R.PUT HUNAINAR ALHITHAN VS. P.H. PANDIAN & OTHERS REPORTED AS AIR 1996 SC 1599. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. THE FACTS OF THE CA SE RELIED UPON BY THE APPLICANT ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM T HE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE JUDGEMENT RELI ED UPON BY THE APPLICANT DOES NOT COME TO HIS RESCUE. IT IS EV IDENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.03.2012 THAT TH E M.P.NO. 47/MDS/2012 4 CONTENTION ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS A LREADY BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, TH E CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS SUBM ISSIONS HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IS NOT WELL FOUNDED. ONCE A N ARGUMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THE DECISION RECORDED, THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY P OWER TO REVIEW THE SAME IN THE GUISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 254(2). THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION ARRIVED AT BY THE T RIBUNAL AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PRIN CIPLE OF LAW THAT THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER THE INCOME TA X ACT IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF MISTAKES WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF T.S.BALARAM, ITO., VS. VOLKART BROTHERS & O RS., REPORTED AS 82 ITR 50 (SC) HAVE HELD THAT THE POWE R OF RECTIFICATION IS PERMISSIBLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF GLA RING, OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKES AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG-DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON THE POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIO NS AND THAT A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE M.P.NO. 47/MDS/2012 5 APPARENT FROM RECORD. THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN REITE RATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HE RO CYCLES PVT.LTD. & ANOTHER, REPORTED AS 228 ITR 463 . WE ACCORDINGLY, SEE NO MERIT IN THIS PETITION. THE SAM E IS THUS, DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS DIS MISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY , THE 25 TH OF MAY, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 25 TH MAY, 2012. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.