Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2533 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
09-10-2014
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
25-09-2014
Assessment Year
2001-2002
Appeal Filed On
17-11-2008
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH: J ODHPUR ( BEFORE SHRI H ARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ) M .A. NO. 4 9 /JODH/20 08 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 466 /JODH/20 0 4 ) (A.Y. 200 1 - 02 ) & M .A. NO. 04 /JODH/20 09 (ARI SING OUT OF ITA NO. 755/JODH/2006) (A.Y. 200 0 - 01 ) THE A . C . I . T VS. M/S CHOKSI HERAEUS PVT. LTD. CIRCLE 1 A - 196 - A , F - ROAD UDAIPUR MEWAR INDUSTRIAL AREA MADRI UDAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : - SHRI SHARA D KOTHARI . DEPARTMENT BY : - SHRI JAI SINGH - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 26 /0 9 /201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 / 1 0 /2014 O R D E R P E R HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. : TH ESE M.A S . HA VE BEEN FIELD BY THE REVENUE IN RELATION TO TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 26.05. 2006. 2. IN THIS PETITION, THE REVENUE HAS STATED THEREIN THAT AFTER THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL IN QUESTION, A CONTRARY JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE 2 SUPREME HIGH COURT WITH REGARD TO CALCULATION OF PROFIT OF BUSINESS WHILE CALCULATING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF T HE ACT HAS BEEN RENDERED. THEREFORE, MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD HAS CREPT INTO THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED . 3. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. A.R HAS DEFENDED THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND HAS SUBMITTED WITH THE HELP OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE ACTO VS. MAKKAD PLASTIC AGENCIES REPORTED IN [2011] 4SCC 750 [SC] IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION FOR REVIEW, EXERCISE OF POWER OF REVIEW UNDER THE GARB OF CLARIFICATION/MODIFICATIO N/CORR ECTION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THERE BEING NO ERROR IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH HAD DECIDED THE CASE BY FOLLOWING THE EXISTING LAW OBTAINING ON THAT DATE AND SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT RENDERED CANNOT BE TREATED AS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE TRIBUNAL ORD ER. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, ACCORDING TO THE LD. A.R, REMEDY LIES IN THE APPEAL. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R AND HOLD THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH CAN BE SAID TO BE OBVIOUS, PATENT AND APPARENT FROM RECORD. THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISION IN THE ACT WHEREUNDER IN SUCH 3 CIRCUMSTANCES ORDER CAN BE REVIEWED BY THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE JUDGMENT RELIED ON BY THE LD. A.R WAS RENDERED UNDER THE COMMERCIAL TAXES LAWS AND TH E RATIO OF THAT JUDGMENT IS THAT EVEN REVIEW, IF PERMISSIBLE, CANNOT BE MADE UNLESS IT IS SO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED BY THE ACT. WE ARE AWARE THAT THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) ARE VERY CURSORY AND WEAK . IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE REFERRED HON'BLE S UPREME HIGH COURT JUDGMENT, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE SAME. 5 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MA S OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 09 TH OCTOBER , 2014. SD/ - SD/ - (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 09 TH OCTOBER , 2014 VL / - COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT BY ORDER 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, JODHPUR
