Babe Ke Ayurvedic Medical College & Hospital, Moga V. ITO (TDS), Ludhiana

MA 49/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3819 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.49/CHD/2014 IN ITA NO. 309/CHD/2012 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) M/S BABE KE AYURVEDIC MEDICAL VS THE ITO (TDS)-I, COLLEGE & HOSPITAL, LUDHIANA. (UNITED EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY), MOGA. PAN: AAATU1851B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.01.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR RECALLING OF THE EARLIER ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL DATED 07.11.2013. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH ON 22.10.2013. THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST FOR ADJOURN MENT VIDE LETTER DATED 21.10.2013 WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 3 OF THE ORDER NOTE D THAT THE RECORD REVEALED THAT THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED ON 2 VARIOUS DATES ON THE SIMILAR REASON, THEREFORE, REQ UEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED AND APPEAL WAS DECIDED EX- PARTE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS WAS DISMIS SED VIDE ORDER DATED 07.11.2013. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HA S STATED THAT REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MADE ON21.10.2013 AND THAT THE SAME MUST HAVE REACHED BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL AND IT APPEARS THAT THE REQUEST LETTER HAS NOT BEEN PLACED ON FILE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THA T EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED THE DATE OF HEARI NG OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR 18.09.2015, 06.11 .2015 AND 08.01.2016. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. 5. AFTER HEARING LD. DR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THERE I S NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH REQUIRES ANY RECTIFICATION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE SAME TO BE INAPPROPRIATE R EQUEST AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON MERI TS. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO R EVIEW ITS ORDERS PASSED ON MERITS. WE RELY UPON DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF EARNEST EXPORTS LT D. 323 ITR 577, DECISION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANAMIKA BUILDERS 251 ITR 585, DECISION OF MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AGGARWAL WAREHOUS ING 3 257 ITR 235 AND DECISION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LIVER LTD. 284 ITR 42 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, THE MISTAKE MUST BE SO OBVIOUS THAT IT CAN BE EASILY CORRECTED, TO WIT AN ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE, W RONG QUOTATION OF SECTION ETC. AND NOT ON DEBATABLE ISSU E. SINCE IN THIS CASE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AND WAS REJECTED, THEREFORE, ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE REVIEWED. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. TH E MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORD INGLY, DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 8 TH JANUARY,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH