M/s S.D Traders, Kanpur V. Income Tax Officer, Kanpur

MA 66/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2418 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K RAM

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.66 /LKW/20 14 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO.54/LKW/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006 - 07 M/S S. D. TRADERS, 115/241 - A, MASWANPUR, KANPUR. PAN:ABHFS5237M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), KANPUR. (A PPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI ABHINAV MEHROTRA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. K. RAM, D. R. DATE OF HEARING 22/08/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 8 /09/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT FOLLOWING MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER: ( A ) NON CONSIDERATION OF THE BINDING DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, CITED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. ( B ) NON CONSIDERATION OF THE BINDING NATURE OF THE OBITER DICTA OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE AS THE ONE DECIDED BY THE BENCH AND CITED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING . ( C ) NON - CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. IN THIS REGARD IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL WAS HEARD ON 7 - 02 - 2014 AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 11 - 04 - 2014. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENTS OF AR HAVE APPARENTLY ESCAPED THE NOTICE OF THE HON'BLE BENCH DUE TO TIME GAP. [ 2 ] 2. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS WHICH ARE RAISED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SU BMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT BINDING DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED T RIBUNAL DECISION IS BY FOLLOWING A BINDING DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KASHI NATH CHANDIWALA [2006] 280 ITR 318 (ALL). ONLY ONE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF HEARING I.E. THE JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS GURJARGRAVURES P. LTD. [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC) . THE TRIBUNAL HAS DULY NOTED THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN PARA NO. 3 OF ITS ORDER. THEREAFTER, A S PER PARA 5.3, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS DULY DISCUSSED AND CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PARA I.E. PARA NO. 5.3 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER IS REPR ODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: 5.3 LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX VS GURJARGRAVURES P. LTD. AS REPORTED IN [1978] 111 ITR 1 (SC). IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS JUDGMEN T OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS DIFFERENT. IN THAT CASE, THE DISPUTE WAS NOT REGARDING ANY ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE CIT(A). THE DISPUTE WAS THAT AS TO WHETHER A CLAIM FOR EXE MPTION, WHICH WAS NOT MADE BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER AND NO MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM, THEN WHETHER [ 3 ] SUCH CLAIM CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE AAC. HENCE, THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT, CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSES SEE, IS NOT RENDERING ANY HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 4.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND EVEN IF THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT CORRECT AS PER THE ASSESSEE THEN ALSO , IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THIS CONTENTION THAT BINDING DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT WAS NOT CONSIDERED, IS NOT CORRECT AND, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO M ERIT IN THIS MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 1 8 /0 9 /2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE O RDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A ) 5. DR, ITAT, LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR