Shri Prahlad R. Agrawal (HUF), GANDHIDHAM V. The ACIT, Gandhidham Circle, GANDHIDHAM

MA 5/RJT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3920 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 133(6); 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA No. 5/Rjt/2017 (Arising out of ITA No. 874/Rjt/2010) Assessment Year : 2001-02 Shri Prahlad R. Agrawal (HUF), Prop. M.R. Shah Transport Co. & Shri Ambica Auto Mobile, Plot No.355, Ward 12/B, Gandhidham-Kutch PAN : AABHA 4640 K Vs ACIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham Applicant (Original Respondent) Respondent (Original Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR Revenue by : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr DR /Date of Hearing : 10/06/2022 /Date of Pr onouncement: 15/06/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT : By this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is seeking rectification of the mistake alleged to have crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 12.07.2017 passed in ITA No.874/Rjt/2010. 2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As submitted by the assessee in the present Miscellaneous Application and further reiterated by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing before us, the entire addition of Rs.72,11,013/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of bogus freight rate difference payment was deleted by the learned CIT(A) relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Dinesh M. Agarwal vide order dated 06.01.2009 passed in IT(SS)A No. 49/Rjt/2004. The learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the Tribunal vide its order dated 12.07.2017 (supra), however, sustained the said disallowance MA No. 5/Rjt/2017 Shri Prahlad R Agrawal (HUF) Vs. ACIT AY : 2001-02 2 to the extent of 15% of the cash payment of Rs.72,11,013/- without considering the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Dinesh M. Agarwal (supra) on a similar issue which was duly followed by the learned CIT(A) while giving complete relief to the assessee. He has contended that there is thus a mistake in the order of the Tribunal dated 12.07.2017 which is apparent from the record. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed this Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee by submitting that a considered view was taken by the Tribunal while sustaining the disallowance to the extent of 15% of the relevant freight expenses and the same cannot be reviewed in the guise of Miscellaneous Application as sought by the assessee. 3. After considering the submissions made by both the sides and perusing the relevant material available on record, we find merit in the contention of the learned DR. It is observed that the relevant portion of the appellate order of the learned CIT(A) challenged by the Revenue in its appeal where the reliance was placed by the learned CIT(A) on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Dinesh M. Agarwal (supra) was extracted by the Tribunal in its order dated 12.07.2017. It, therefore, cannot be said that the said decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Dinesh M. Agarwal (supra) was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while deciding the issue vide its order dated 12.07.2017 (supra). Moreover, as specifically noted by the Tribunal in paragraph No.5 of its order, there was a failure on the part of the assessee to furnish complete postal address and other details in respect of many parties to whom freight payments were made in cash/bearer cheque(s). Keeping in view this failure of the assessee as well as the fact that no reply had been received to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 133(6) of the Act in some cases, it was held by the Tribunal that disallowance of 15% out of cash MA No. 5/Rjt/2017 Shri Prahlad R Agrawal (HUF) Vs. ACIT AY : 2001-02 3 payments of Rs.72,11,013/- would be justified. It is thus clear that a well considered view was taken by the Tribunal after taking into consideration all the facts of the case as well as the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Dinesh M. Agarwal (supra) and it, therefore, cannot be said that there was any mistake much less a mistake apparent from the record in the order of the Tribunal dated 12.07.2017 (supra) as alleged by the assessee in the present Miscellaneous Application. As rightly contended by the learned DR, the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act is limited to rectify only those mistakes which are apparent from the record and the review of the decision of the Tribunal is not permissible under the said provision. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this Miscellaneous Application and reject the same. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15 th June, 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT Ahmedabad, Dated 15/06/2022 *Bt /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. ! / The Appellant 2. "# ! / The Respondent. 3. $%$&' # # ( / Concerned CIT 4. # # ( ) (/ The CIT(A)- 5. + , # &' , # # &' /DR,ITAT, Rajkot, 6. , ./ 0 /Guard file. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY ह # $ज (Asstt. Registrar) # # &' ITAT, Rajkot