ITO, Ward - 12(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Peerless Developers Ltd., Kolkata

MA 60/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7808 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K TULSIYAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A K PRAMANIK

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH B, KOLKATA () BEFORE . .. . , ,, , !, SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ' ' ' ' /AND . .. .#$ #$#$ #$. .. . , %& ! SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '' '' '' '' / M.A.NO.60/KOL/2011 A/O ITA NO . 602/KOL/2010 () *+/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 (-. / APPELLANT ) I.T.O., WARD-12(2), KOLKATA. - - - VERSUS - . (01-./ RESPONDENT ) M/S.PEERLESS DEVELOPERS LTD., KOLKATA. (PAN:AABCP 5070 B) -. 2 3 %/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A.K.PRAMANIK 01-. 2 3 %/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI S.K.TULSIYAN 4 2 $& /DATE OF HEARING : 06.01.2012. 5* 2 $& /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.03.2012. %6 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. .#$ #$#$ #$. .. . ) )) ), , , , %& ! PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE TO RECTIFY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.08.2010 VIDE ITA NO.602/KOL/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE LD. DR AP PEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN ITS FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING THREE ISSUES : A) THE AMOUNT OF RS.18,23,750/- GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE AS ADVANCE TO M/S.TELERAMA INDIA LTD. WAS WRITTEN OFF. 2 B) THE AMOUNT OF RS.22,77,120/- GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE AS ADVANCE TO M/S.CICICO LTD. WAS WRITTEN OFF. C) SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.5,00,000/- WITH LILY BISC UIT LTD. WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE 4 TH ISSUE WHICH RELATES TO THE AMOUNT OF RS,.1,00,93,1 25/- AS OTHER RECEIVABLE FROM AIC NEPAL HAS NOT BEEN DEALT WITH B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 27.08.2010. THEREFORE HE REQUESTED TO RECALL THE OR DER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27.08.2010 FOR FRESH HEARING. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THERE ARE FOUR ISSUES RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND ALL ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE. WHEN ONCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN ITS FINDINGS ON TH REE ISSUES THE FOURTH ISSUE IS ALSO EMBEDDED WHILE GIVING THE FINAL FINDING. NO PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED IF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IS RECALLED TO DECIDE THE 4 TH ISSUE WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE OTHER THREE ISSUES . IN PARA 7.1. AT THE END THIS TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALL Y UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THAT MEANS THEY HAVE CONSIDERED THE FOURTH ISSUE ALSO. T HEREFORE THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE REV ENUE IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IT WILL TANTAMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER A ND THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT EMPOWERED TO REVIEW ITS ORDER WHEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS SPECIFICA LLY GIVEN THE FINDING IN ITS ORDER. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE FIND NO MISTAKE APPARENT FRO M THE RECORD AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE RE VENUE IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THEN IT WILL TANTAMOUNT TO REVIEW OF ITS ORDER WHIC H IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW. THEREFORE WE DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28.03.2012. SD/- SD/- . .. . , , , , ( ( ( ( ! ! ! ! N.VIJAYAKUMARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .#$ #$#$ #$. .. . , , , , %& %& %& %& ! ! ! !, C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( ($& $& $& $&) )) ) DATE: 28.03.2012. R.G.(.P.S.) 3 %6 2 0(( 7%*8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S.PEERLESS DEVELOPERS LTD., 9/3, EKDALIA PLACE, K OL-19. 2 THE I.T.O., WARD-12(2), KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT-IV,KOLKATA 4. THE CIT(A)-XII, KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 1 0(/ TRUE COPY, %6/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES