1 MA NOS 494 & 495/MUM/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN, JM MA NO. 494/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 116/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 MA NO. 495/MUM/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 585/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HINDUSTAN DORR-OLIVER LTD., CHAKALA, ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 099. PAN AAACH0964P VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 8(2), MUMBAI. APPLICANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY SHRI DIVYESH SHAH RESPONDENT BY SHRI V.V. SHASTRI DATE OF HEARING : 19-04 -2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-04-2013 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. BY THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKIN G RECALL OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DTD. 09-09-2011 PASSED IN ITA NO. 116/MUM/2009 AND 585/MUM/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY ON THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 RELATI NG TO DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR WARRANTY AND FIELD SERVICES. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR 2 MA NOS 494 & 495/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 RELATING TO DISA LLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION MADE FOR WARRANTY AND FIELD SE RVICES WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DTD. 9-9-2011 (SUPRA) A GAINST THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING ITS ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2005-05. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL FOR A.Y. 2004- 05 ON THIS ISSUE WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND VIDE ORDER DTD. 1 3-1-2012, THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS RESTORED THIS ISSUE T O THE FILE OF THE ITAT FOR FRESH DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THERE IS THUS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED BY RE CALLING THE SAID ORDER ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO. 1. 3. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THERE BEING NO DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 ON MERIT AND THE MATTER HAVING BEEN SI MPLY RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ITAT FOR FRESH DECISION, IT CANNOT BE S AID THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN A.Y. 2004-05 HAS G IVEN RISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE FIND NO MERIT IN THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN A.Y. 2004-05 HAS ONLY RESTORED THE SI MILAR ISSUE TO THE FILE 3 MA NOS 494 & 495/MUM/2012 OF THE ITAT FOR FRESH DECISION AND THERE BEING NO D ECISION RENDERED ON THE SAID ISSUE ON MERIT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DEC ISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 ON A SIMILAR ISSUE IS CONTRARY TO THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT GIVING RISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN IT S ORDER DTD. 9-9-2011. WE THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19-04-2013. SD/- SD/- (DR. S.T.M. PAVALAN) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 19-04-2013. RK COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED - MUMBAI 4. THE CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. THE DR BENCH, H 6. MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI