MORTA FINLEASE & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. DCIT - 8(2), MUMBAI

MA 63/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5890 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN KUMAR
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL -BBENCH MUMBAI , ,, , , ,, , BEFORE S/SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH,JUDICIAL MEMB ER AND RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MA NO.63/MUM/2016 (ARISING OUT OF / ITA NO.374 /MUM/2010) /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2000-01) MORTA FINLEASE & INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD. 124, ANDHERI UNIVERSAL INDL. PREMISES, J.P. ROAD ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI-400 058. PAN:AAACM 6864 B VS. DCIT RANGE -8(2) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI SUMAN KUMAR ASSESSEE BY: MS. DINKLE HARIYA / DATE OF HEARING: 22.09.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.11.2017 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) / PER RAJENDRA, AM - VIDE ITS APPLICATION DTD.04/03/2016 THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL FOR THE ABOVE REFERRED ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y. ) ON 24/12/2013, THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, SAME WERE TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CH ALLENGED LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234B OF THE ACT, THAT IT WAS ARGUED DURING THE HEARING BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL THAT NO INTEREST U/S. 234B COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED UPON THE ASSESSEE DUE TO A RETROSP ECTIVE AMENDMENT IN LAW,THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY (FAA),THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD REFERRED TO CASE OF GEETHA RAMKRISHNA MILLS( P) LTD.(288ITR489) ,THAT THE JUDGMENT OF PRIME SECURITIES LTD.(333 ITR464)OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WA S NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 2. DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US THE AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE APPLICATION.ALTERNATIVE LY,IT WAS ARGUED THAT MATTER COULD BE RESTORED BACK FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION TO THE FILE OF AO FOR CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THAT REGARD.THE DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) STATED THAT TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING AL L THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND REFERRING TO THE CASE KWALITY BISCUITS (284ITR234) OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. MA/63/M/16(00-01) MORTA FINLEASE & INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD. 2 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD.WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DEALT THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF INTEREST U/ S.234B OF THE ACT AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL,THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT FACTS OF BOTH THE CASES ARE DISTINGUISHABLE,THAT IN THE CASE OF PRIME SECURITIES ISSUE OF SECTION 47(V)WAS DEALT WITH,THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD RELIED UPON THE CASE OF GEETHA RAMKRISHNA MILLS( P) LTD.(SUPRA)AND HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE.IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL.TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO GET THE EARLIER ORDER REVIEWED BY FILING AN APPLICATION UND ER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT.THEREFORE,WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL,DTD. 24/12/2013. AS A RESULT, MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. 15 , 2017 SD/- SD/- ( / MAHAVIR SINGH ) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED : 15.11.2017. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.