The ITO, 4(3), Indore V. Shri M. S. Siddhiki, Indore

MA 65/IND/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7395 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S S SOLANKI
• Keywords: Tax effect

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 MA NO.65/IND/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.480/IND/2010) A.Y. 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3) INDORE ... APPLICANT VS M.S.SIDDIQUI INDORE ... RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.S. SOLANKI DATE OF HEARING : 16.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.12.2011 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT A MISTA KE HAS 2 CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH JUNE, 2011 (ITA NO. 480/IND/2010) WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED ON THE PLEA THAT THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS PETITION, THE LD. SR. DR, SHRI ARUN DEWAN, ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENT WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE PETITION BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMA R MANI BHAI PATEL AND COMPANY (311 ITR 386). ON THE OTHER HAND , THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHRI S.S. SOLANKI , CONTENDED THAT FIRSTLY THE TAX EFFECT IS BELOW PRESCRIBED LIM IT AND SECONDLY THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS HAS BEEN CANVASSED BY THE LEARNED SR. DR. A PLEA WAS RAISED THAT THE REVENUE IS MERELY TRYING TO GET THE ORDER REVIEWED WHICH POWER IS NOT VESTED WITH THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. WITHOUT GOING INTO MUCH DELIBERATION, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE AN ELABORATE 3 DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER DATED 30 TH JUNE, 2011 AND HAS DISCUSSED THE CBDT CIRCULAR ALONG WITH THE DECISIO N FROM THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY TH E LEARNED SR. DR. OTHER DECISIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED ALONG WITH THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3/2011 DATED 9.2.2011 RAISING THE MONETARY LIMIT. THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH I N THE CASE OF LAXMI JEWELS LIMITED (ITA NO. 2165/MUM/2010) ORD ER DATED 12.4.2011 WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED IN M/S IN DIA SAFETY VALVES LIMITED (ITA NO. 648 TO 651/MUM/2010) ORDER DATED 29.4.2011 AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR HUF HAVE ALSO BE EN DISCUSSED. NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE B Y THE REVENUE EVIDENCING THAT THE TAX IS ABOVE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT UNDER THE GUISE OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE REVENUE IS TRYING TO GET THE ORDER REVIEWED WHICH POWER IS NOT VESTED WITH THE TRIBUNA L AND ONLY CLERICAL/ARITHMATICAL MISTAKES WHICH ARE APPARENT F ROM RECORD 4 CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO INHERENT POWERS OF REVIEW WHICH MUST BE EXPRESSLY C ONFERRED BY THE STATUTE. THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN NIRANJAN & COMPANY V. I.T.A.T.; 122 ITR 519 (CAL) AND CIT VS. I.T.A.T.; 1 96 ITR 640 (ORISSA) SUPPORTS OUR VIEW. 5. SINCE NO APPARENT MISTAKE HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OU R NOTICE BY THE EITHER SIDE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL, CONSEQUENTLY THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE REVENUE IS HAVING NO MERIT, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENT OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDE S AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16.12.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE !VYS!