Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Lucknow V. M/S. Swarswati Sewa SansthanTrust, Lucknow

MA 51/LKW/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5625 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2018
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

M.A. NO.51/LKW/2018 (IN I.T.A. NO.241/LKW/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.51/LKW/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.241/LKW/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) LUCKNOW. VS. M/S SARASWATI SEWA SANSTHAN, 2177, E-BLOCK, RAJAJIPURAM, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAETS 9292G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R THIS MISC. APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 10/08/2018 PASSED IN I.T.A.NO .241/LKW/2018. 2. THE MISC. APPLICATION WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 1 7/05/2019. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED D.R. REITERATED THE SU BMISSIONS MADE IN THE MISC. APPLICATION. 3. THE LEARNED A. R., ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE APPARENT I N THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BUT THE REVENUE WANTS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS ORDER FOR WHICH THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION. LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF H EARING OF THE APPEAL, LEARNED D. R. HAD NOT RAISED SUCH OBJECTION THEREFO RE, AS PER JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. NAWANY CONSTRUCTION APPELLANT BY SMT. ALKA SINGH, D.R. RESPONDENT BY MS. SWETA MITTAL, F.C.A. DATE OF HEARING 17/05/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17 / 05 /201 9 M.A. NO.51/LKW/2018 (IN I.T.A. NO.241/LKW/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 2 CO. (P) LTD. [2018] 98 TAXMANN.COM 294, MERE RAISIN G OBJECTION IN TERMS OF CBDT CIRCULAR IS NOT ENOUGH TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE. WE NOTED THAT THE REVE NUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL. THE REVENUE, BY FILING THIS MISC. APPLICATION, DESIRES THIS TRIBUNA L TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. THIS TRIBUNAL, IN OUR OPINION, DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER U /S 254(2) TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. THE POWER VESTED WITH THE TRIBUNAL RELATES TO THE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. THE MISTAKE APPARENT MEANS THAT THE MIS TAKE MUST BE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER CON SIDERING THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL, DECIDED THE APPEAL AND PASSED TH E ORDER. IF THE REVENUE HAS ANY GRIEVANCE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL , THE REVENUE CAN GO BEFORE THE HIGH COURT BY FILING APPEAL U/S 260A. T HE TRIBUNAL CANNOT RECALL ITS ORDER IN THE GARB OF POWER VESTED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. RECALLING OF THE ORDER WILL TANTAMOUNT TO REHEARING OF THE APPEAL. THIS POWER IS NOT VESTED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES HAD PASSED THE ORDER DISCUSSING THE PRO VISIONS OF THE LAW. IN MY OPINION, THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL. MOREOVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, LEARNED D. R. HAD NOT RAISED THE OBJECTION AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE MISC. APPLIC ATION. AS PER JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. NAWANY CONSTRUCTION CO. (P) LTD. [2018] 98 TAXMANN.COM 294 , MERE RAISING OBJECTION IN TERMS OF CBDT CIRCULAR IS NOT ENOUGH T O RECALL THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE MISC. APPLICA TION FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION STANDS DISM ISSED. SD/. ( T. S. KAPOOR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:17/05/2019 *SINGH M.A. NO.51/LKW/2018 (IN I.T.A. NO.241/LKW/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW