JCIT, Kurukshetra V. Jain Rice Mills, Kurukshetra

MA 52/CHANDI/2020

AI Insights

The case involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue against an earlier order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, which had directed the application of a Gross Profit Rate of 3% for the assessment year 2007-08, subject to the condition that the ultimate income should not be less than the surrendered income of Rs. 40,00,000. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal had not provided reasons for deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer and sought rectification of the findings in paragraphs 19(i) & (ii) of the order. The Tribunal, however, found that the application was seeking a review of the decision, which is beyond the scope of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127691 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “ए” , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH ी स ु धांश ु ीवा तव, या यक सद य, एवं ी "व#म %संह यादव, लेखा सद य BEFORE: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JM & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM Misc. Application No. 52/Chd/2020 ( ITA NO. 701/Chd/2012) Assessment Year : 2007-08 The JCIT, Kurukshetra M/s Jain Rice Mills Amin Road, Kurukshetra PAN NO: AAEFJ0706E Appellant Respondent ! " Assessee by : None # ! " Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, JCIT, Sr. DR $ % ! & Date of Hearing : 06/01/2023 '()* ! & Date of Pronouncement : 30/01/2023 आदेश/Order PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M. : The present Misc. Application has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 701/Chd/2012 dt. 31/03/2016. 2. The Revenue in its application has stated that the Tribunal has expressed its view in para 9 of its decision that instead of making addition of Rs. 44,28,447/- and Rs. 33,00,029/- , it would be appropriate that when books of account have been rejected, the authorities below should apply slightly higher GP rate for the purpose of computing income of the assessee. In para 18, the Tribunal has observed that it would have been better for the authorities below to compute the assessee’s income reasonably considering the history of the assessee, particularly in view of the fact that the explanation of the assessee has clearly shows that the addition on account of superfine paddy and rice bran were not 2 wholly justified. Further that when all the additions are taken into consideration it would give the profit rate of 9.93% which would be totally unjustified considering the history of the assessee. Observing so the Tribunal has directed to apply the G.P. Rate of 3% subject to the condition that ultimate income should not be less than the surrendered income of Rs. 40,00,000/-. 3. In this regard it was submitted that while applying the G.P. Rate of 3%, the Tribunal has not given any reason for deleting the addition made by the AO. Similarly findings of the Tribunal in Para 19(i) & (ii) have been sought to be rectified stating apparent mistake on the face of the record. 4. During the course of hearing, it was pointed out by the Bench that the decision of the Tribunal contained in para 19 and 20 of the impugned order are based on the appreciation of relevant facts and circumstances of the case which are duly mentioned in the earlier part of the impugned order and specific reasoning has been given for estimation of gross profit where the books of accounts have been rejected and the ld DR was directed to justify specific mistake if any which has crept in the order so passed by the Coordinate Bench. In response, the Ld. DR fairly submitted that she would like to rely on the Misc. Application filed by the AO. 5. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on the record including the order passed by the Coordinate Bench as well as Misc. Application filed by the Revenue and we are of the considered view that what has been sought to be rectified by the virtue of the impugned MISC. application is the review and reconsideration of the decision already taken by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dt. 31/03/2016. It is a settled legal position that the provisions of Section 254(2) are basically meant to rectify any mistake apparent on the face of the order so passed by the Tribunal and therefore the limited jurisdiction under section 254(2) cannot be invoked seeking review of its own decision so taken by the Tribunal. Where the Revenue is aggrieved with the 3 decision of the Tribunal, where so advised, the order so passed may be appealed before the higher forum. 6. In the result, we find no basis in the Misc. Application so filed by the Revenue, hence the same is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/01/2023) Sd/- Sd/- "व#म %संह यादव स ु धांश ु ीवा तव (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) लेखा सद य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER AG Date: 30/01/2023 ( + ! , - . - Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 0 1 The CIT(A) 5. - 2 ग 4 5 & 4 5 678 ग9 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. ग 8 : % Guard File ( + $ By order, ; # Assistant Registrar