M/s R K D F Education Society, Bhopal V. The Commissioner of income tax, Bhopal

MA 55/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6407 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-04-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SSH H P VERMA
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.55/IND/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 99/IND/2007) RKDF EDUCATION SOCIETY, BHOPAL PAN AAATR 1026 R APPLICANT VS. CIT-BHOPAL RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : S/SH. H.P. VERMA & ASHISH GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA, SR. DR O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES SEEKING RECALLING/RECTIFICATION OF THE OR DER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 10.8.2007. 2. DURING HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, MR . H.P. VERMA ALONG WITH SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS IDENTICAL TO THE SUBMI SSIONS AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION. ON THE OTH ER HAND, SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA, LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL BY CONTENDING THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER AND THE ASSESSE E IS MERELY TRYING TO GET THE ORDER REVIEWED WHICH POWER IS NOT AVAILABLE WIT H THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF 2 BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF T HE ACT WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY VIDE ORDER DATED 10. 8.2007. THE LD. CIT WAS DIRECTED TO GRANT REGISTRATION W.E.F. 13.8.1999. TH ROUGH THIS MA, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE REGISTRATION MAY BE GRA NTED FROM THE DATE OF ITS REGISTRATION I.E. 13.9.1994. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT SINCE THE ENTIRE RECORD WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, DURING HEARING OF THE MAIN APPEAL, THEREFORE, HE INADVERTENTLY MENTIO NED THE DATE AS 13.8.1999. REQUEST WAS MADE THAT THE REGISTRATION M AY BE GRANTED FROM THE DATE OF REGISTRATION WITH THE REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIE S I.E. 13.9.1994. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL MENTIONED HEREINABOVE ARE ANALYSED AND KEP T IN JUXTAPOSITION WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME AND ALSO NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE ALSO FI ND THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION, IDENTICAL MA WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE (MA NO.49/IN D/2007) ARISING OUT OF THE SAME ORDER AND THE MA WAS DISMISSED BEING WITHD RAWN VIDE ORDER DATED 13.2.2008, THEREFORE, NO SECOND MA LIES. OUR VIEW I S SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION FROM HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. PRESIDENT, ITAT (196 ITR 838) (ORI). EVEN OTHERWISE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS LIMITED POWERS TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. THE POWERS OF VIEW MUST BE CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE . REVIEW OF AN ORDER 3 MEANS REEXAMINATION OR TO GIVE A SECOND VIEW OF THE MATTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALTERATION OR REVERSAL OF THE VIEW ALRE ADY TAKEN AFTER CHANGING THE EARLIER OPINION OR VIEW. THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E TRIBUNAL U/S 254(1) IS THE EFFECTIVE ORDER SO FAR AS THE APPEAL IS CONCERN ED. ANY ORDER PASSED U/S 254(2) EITHER ALLOWING AMENDMENT OR REFUSING TO AME ND GETS MERGED WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED. THE ORDER AS AMENDED OR REMAINING UNAMENDED IS THE EFFECTIVE ORDER FOR ALL PRACTICABLE PURPOSES. T HAT IS THE FINAL ORDER OF THE APPEAL. RECALLING OF ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 2 54(2) AS RECALLING AUTOMATICALLY NECESSITATES REHEARING AND RE-ADJUDIC ATION OF THE APPEAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN CIT VS. B.P. A GRAWAL (90 TAXMAN 283) (CAL), KARAN & CO. (253 ITR 131) (DEL), NIRANJAN & CO. LTD. VS. ITAT (122 ITR 519) (CAL), CIT VS. ITAT (196 ITR 640) (ORI) AND CI T VS. ITAT (155 TAXMAN 378) (DEL). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, NO CASE IS MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS MISCELLANEO US PETITION, THEREFORE, SAME IS DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE ASSESSE ES IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON 1.4.2011. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1.4.2011 !VYAS! COPY TO APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE