URMILA AND CO. LTD, V. ASST ET CEN CIR 24,

MA 602/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9112 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: WT
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C V KRISHNAMOORTHY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI WTA BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO.602/M/2011 (ARISING OUT OF WTA NO.30/MUM/200 6)(AY:2002-03) M.A.NO.603/M/2011 (ARISING OUT OF WTA NO.04/MUM/200 8)(AY:2003-04) M.A.NO.604/M/2011 (ARISING OUT OF WTA NO.05/MUM/200 8)(AY:2004-05) M/S. URMILA & CO. LTD., MACKINNON MACKENZIE BLDG, 4 S.V. ROAD, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400 001. PAN: AAACU 1651 J VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CEN. CIR-24, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARIOM TULSYAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.V. KRISHNAMOORTHY DATE *OF HEARING: 03.08.2012 DATE OF O RDER: 03.08.2012 O R D E R PER R.S. SYAL, A.M. BY MEANS OF THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER REQUIRES RECTIFICATION. TH E LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDING THESE APPEALS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD VIDE PARAS 18 AND 19 THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY I.E. AGRA BUILDING WAS LIABLE TO BE IN CLUDED IN THE TOTAL WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PUT FORTH THE CONTENTION THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS NOT AN ASSET LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL WEALTH IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER BE RECALLED OR SUITABLY AMENDED FOR DELETION OF INCLUSION OF THE VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY. IN THE OPPOSITION, THE LEARNED D R SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO 2 M.A NOS. 602, 603, 605/M/2011 MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER INASMUCH AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER OR THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO NOT D EALT WITH THIS ISSUE BECAUSE NO SUCH GROUND WAS RAISED. IT WAS THEREFORE, REQUESTE D THAT NO RECTIFICATION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS CALLED FOR. 2. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE BY CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS, WHICH WERE ARGUED BEFORE IT. THE LEARN ED AR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE DISCUSSION SO MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS CORRECT BUT FOR THE FACT THAT THE AGRA PROPERTY AS SUCH WAS NOT INCLUDIBLE WITHIN THE MEA NING OF SECTION 2(EA) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. THUS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES MADE BEFORE US AS WELL AS FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD TH AT NO SUCH ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL HEARING . NEITHER THE AO NOR THE CIT (A) HAD ANY OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE CASE FROM THIS ANG LE WHICH WAS NEITHER RAISED NOR ARGUED. THE SCOPE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 35 (1) (E) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957, IS TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE MISTAKE TO BE RECTIFIED MUST BE A GLARING MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WH EN A PARTICULAR ISSUE WAS NOT TAKEN UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE AGGRIEVED PARTY C ANNOT TURN AROUND TO CONTEND THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED IN THE RE CTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS, MORE SO, WHEN NO RELEVANT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY RECTIFICATION WITHIN THE TERMS OF SECTION 35(1) (E) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957. 3 M.A NOS. 602, 603, 605/M/2011 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 03 RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (I.P. BANSAL) (R.S. SYA L) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI. DATED THE 03.08.2012 OKK COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. M/S. URMILA & CO. LTD., MUMBAI. 2. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, MUMBAI. 3. CWT-CONCERNED. 4. D.R. ITAT WTA BENCH, MUMBAI. 5. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI . * DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 03 - 08 - 2012 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 03 - 08 - 2012 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 4. DRAFT DISC USSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER