DCIT, Haldwani V. M/s. Lalkuan Store Crushers Ltd, Rudrapur

MA 496/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6015 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUSHKA KHURANA
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH D DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI C. L. SETHI, JM & SHRI K. D. RA NJAN, AM MISC. APP. NO. 496 (DEL) OF 2009. [ IN I. T. APPEAL NO. 928 (DEL) OF 2007 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200203. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, LALKUAN STONE CRUSHERS LTD., H A L D W A N I. VS. RAMPUR ROAD, RUDRAPUR [UDHAM SINGH NAGAR]. PAN / G I R NO. AAA CL 3025 L. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH, ADV.; DEPARTMENT BY : MS. ANUSHKA KHURANA, SR. D. R .; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN, AM : THIS MISC. APPLICATION BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN FILE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22 ND MAY, 2009 PASSED BY THE ITAT IN ITA. NO. 928 (DEL) OF 2007 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. IN THE GROUND FOR MISC. PETITION IS REPRODUCED A S UNDER :- 1. WHILE DECIDING APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) THE HONBLE ITAT HAS FAIL ED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE WHETHER PROCESSING UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE I. T. ACT IS AN ORDER UNDER 2 MISC. APP. NO. 496 (DEL) OF 2009. THE I. T. ACT LIABLE FOR RECTIFICATION OR NOT, IN V IEW OF HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGEMENT RELIED UPON IN THE CASE OF M/S. GOETZ IND IA LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT FOR ALLOWING AN ADJUSTME NT IN THE RETURN INCOME ACCEPTED UNDER SECTION 143(1) WITHOUT A REVISED RET URN. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE MISC. APPLIC ATION THE LD. SR. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1 ) OF THE ACT TO BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO GROUND OF APPEAL WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL AGAIN ST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, NO MIS TAKE HAS BEEN CREPT IN, IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22 ND MAY, 2009. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY GROUND AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE NOR WAS ANY ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THEREFORE, NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD HAS CREPT IN TO BE REC TIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. SR. DR ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT MISTAKE IN THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE, DESERVES TO BE DI SMISSED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 31 ST JANUARY, 2011 . SD/- SD/- [ C. L. SETHI ] [ K. D . RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31 ST JANUARY, 2011 . *MEHTA * 3 MISC. APP. NO. 496 (DEL) OF 2009. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPLICANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT, 4. CIT (APPEALS), 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT.