Sh. Jeet Pal Singh, Ambala City V. ITO, Ambala

MA 64/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5505 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDEEP SHARMA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.64/CHD/2016 (IN ITA NO. 744/CHD/2015) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SH. JEET PAL SINGH, VS. THE ITO, WARD-1, AMBALA CITY AMBALA PAN NO. AQBPS0218B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SANDEEP SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 18.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.11.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION DATED 16.5.2016 HAS B EEN MOVED BY THE APPLICANT PLEADING THEREIN THAT A MISTAKE APPAR ENT ON RECORD HAS OCCURRED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 08.03.2 016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 2. A PERUSAL OF THE CONTENTS OF THE APPLICATION REV EALS THAT THERE IS NO PLEADING ABOUT ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER DATED 8.3.2016 OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THE APPLICANT / AS SESSEE IN THE APPLICATION HAS STATED VARIOUS FACTUAL AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND HAS PRAYED FOR RE- APPRAISAL OF THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT. IT IS SETT LED LAW THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER OF REVIEW. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY GR IEVANCE AGAINST THE 2 IMPUGNED ORDER, PROPER COURSE IS TO AGITATE THE SAM E BEFORE THE NEXT APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. 1993 203 ITR 497 (BOM.), WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T. S. BALARAM, ITO V. VOLKART BROTHERS [1971] 82 ITR 50 AND FURTHER RELYING UPON THE DECIS IONS OF THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE POWER O F RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCIS ED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIO US AND PATENT; MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAK E WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS O F REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. FAI LURE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FO R ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 254(2) TO PASS THE SECON D ORDER. 3. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND THE LEGAL POSITION AS STATED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPLICATION AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY HEREBY DISMISSED. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CAPTIONED MISC. APPLIC ATION IS HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.11.2017 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 07.11.2017 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR