ITO, New Delhi V. Ram Prakash & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

MA 659/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4723 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2); 55A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA. No.659/DEL/2018 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.1030/DEL/2013) Assessment Year 2009-10 ITO, Ward-21(1), New Delhi. vs. M/s. Ram Prakash & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 4/17-B, MGF House, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAACR0078A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Ms. Ragani Handa, CA Respondent by: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR Date of hearing: 08 04 2022 Date of pronouncement: 19 04 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - A.M.: By this Misc. Application, the Revenue has urged for recalling of order dated 20.06.2018 passed in ITA No.1030/Del/2013 concerning Assessment Year 2009-10. The grounds of Misc. application is reproduced hereunder. “1. The Hon’ble ITAT has inadvertently cited section 55A(e) in para 5 of the impugned order in ITA No.1030/Del/2013 dated 20.06.2018, while making reference of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pooja Print (360 ITR 697) whereas the CIT(A) has upheld the reference by the A.O. u/s 55A(b)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in taking cognizance of the amendment made in the law by Finance Act, 2012 that is effective from 01.07.2012 in the provisions of section 55A of the Act, as appears in the last line M.A. No. 659/DEL/2018 2 of para 6 of the order in ITA No. 1030/Del/2013 dated 20.06.2018, whereas the facts in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10 is that the issue in question pertain to assessment order dated 30.12.2011 i.e. prior to the amendment in the section 55A comes into effect.” 2. When the matter was called for hearing, ld. DR for the Revenue referred to Misc. Application dated 16.10.2018 and submitted that the ITAT while disposing of the impugned substantive appeal in ITA No.1030/Del/2013 concerning Assessment Year 2009-10 has committed apparent mistake in wrongly applying the position of law with reference to Section 55A of the Act. It was pointed out that the ITAT has relied upon the amended law of Section 55A of the Act which is applicable prospectively w.e.f. 01.07.2012 and is not applicable to the present Assessment Year 2009-10. It was further pointed out that in paragraph 5 of the Tribunal’s order, the Tribunal has quoted the passage of the judgment delivered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pooja Print (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom) and wrongly recorded Section 55A(e) of the Act and came to a conclusion on the valuation of capital asset in question. Ld. DR accordingly submitted that the impugned order suffers from a mistake apparent from record and deserves to be recalled for adjudication afresh in the light of the pre-amended law in relation to Section 55A of the Act. 3. Ld. counsel for the assessee on the other hand submitted that the Misc. Application of the Revenue has no leg to stand inasmuch as the Tribunal has applied the law echoed in Pooja Print (supra) which delineate on pre-amended law. The reference to Section 55A(e) is only a typographical error which should be read as Section 55A(a) as can be seen from the judgment delivered by Bombay High Court itself. This typographical error has not caused any prejudice to the Revenue per se and thus there is no warrant to exercise powers under Section 254(2) of the Act. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the order of the Tribunal which is subject matter of rectification. We straightaway notice M.A. No. 659/DEL/2018 3 that the Revenue has proceeded on misconception that the law on amended provision of Section 55A has been applied which is wholly incorrect. The Tribunal has applied the ratio of Pooja Prints (supra) and held that the Assessing Officer is not empowered to refer the valuation of capital asset to the valuation cell where the value determined by the assessee is higher than the fair market value as on 01.04.1981. Such interpretation is clearly based on pre-amended law as applicable at the relevant time. Hence, we see no error in the order of the Tribunal which falls within the sweep of mistake apparent from record envisaged under Section 254(2) of the Act. We thus see no merit in the Misc. Application filed by the Revenue. 5. In the result, the Misc. Application of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19 th April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 19 th April, 2022 Prabhat