Shree Someshwar SSK Ltd., Pune V. DCIT, Circle-6, Pune

MA 68/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Shree Someshwar SSK Ltd., which filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking to distinguish a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd. The assessee argued that certain issues were not covered in the Supreme Court's judgment, and thus, these issues remained un-adjudicated in the Tribunal's earlier order. The Tribunal, however, found that the issues raised were already decided in accordance with the Supreme Court's judgment and dismissed the application, stating that the Tribunal's order was in line with the law declared by the Supreme Court, and no rectification was necessary.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124432 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2019
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd., T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. M/s. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ld., CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company
• Laws Referred To: Article 141 of the Constitution of India, Section 254(1) of the Act, Section 254(2) of the Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No. 68/PUN/2022 Arising out of ITA No. 2600/PUN/2012 : A.Y. 2009-10 Shree Someshwar SSK Ltd., Tal. Baramti, Dist. Pune – 412 306 PAN: AAAAS2034B Applicant Vs. The Dy. CIT Cir. 6, Pune. Respondent Applicant by : Shri Prasanna Joshi Respondent by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of Hearing : 03-02-2023 Date of Pronouncement : 07-02-2023 ORDER PER SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER This Misc. application preferred by the assessee emanates from order of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2600//PUN/2012 for A.Y. 2009-10 dated 20-03-2019. 2. We have perused the contents of the Misc. application filed by the assessee. We have also perused the order of the Tribunal dated 20-03-2019. 3. In this Misc. application, the assessee wants the Tribunal to distinguish the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 57 (SC) by stating that certain issues were not covered in this judgment and similarly in the order of the Tribunal, this issue remained un-adjudicated since the Tribunal had relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Tasgaon Taluka SSK Ltd. (supra). 2 M.A. No. 68/PUN/2022 Shree Someshwar SSK ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 4. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the issue of `Excessive sugar cane price’ in the batch of appeals disposed of vide impugned order has been determined in terms of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (supra). The contention of the ld. AR that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not consider certain contentions before deciding the issue in the way it has been decided and hence, the rectification should be carried out, in our considered opinion, is farfetched and devoid of merit. Once a particular issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a particular manner, no one is allowed to argue that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not determine the issue correctly. Article 141 of the Constitution of India makes the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court binding on all courts in the territory of India leaving no scope for anyone pointing out some mistake in any judicial proceedings. As the Bench passed the order u/s 254(1) of the Act in accordance with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that no mistake, much less a mistake apparent from record, can be traced in it requiring rectification. 5. There are series of decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as Hon'ble High Courts expounding scope of exercising powers under section 254(2) of the Act. We do not deem it necessary to recite and recapitulate all of them, but suffice to say that core of all these authoritative pronouncements is that power for rectification under section 254(2) of the Act can be exercised only when mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious and patent mistake, which is apparent from the record and not a mistake, which is required to be established by arguments and long drawn process of reasoning on points, on which there may conceivably be two opinions. 3 M.A. No. 68/PUN/2022 Shree Someshwar SSK ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 6. Following the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court and deciding the case is not a mistake much less apparent from record. The issue as contested by the assessee pertains to review of our order which is not permissible within the scope of misc. application jurisdiction u/s 254(2) of the Act as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. M/s. Volkart Brothers, Bombay, (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein it has been observed and held as under: A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions.” 7. For further fortifying this view, we also make a reference to the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ld., 262 ITR 146 which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 305 ITR 227. 8. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company reported as 203 ITR 497 has also held that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to rectification of mistake apparent from record itself and not rectification in error of judgment. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble High Court are as under: “The Tribunal cannot, in exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from the record itself.” 9. We are of considered view that in the guise of rectification, the assessee is seeking review of the order of Tribunal, which is beyond the scope of powers as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. 10. In view of the above and as per the Miscellaneous Application filed before us, we do not find any mistake, much less apparent from record that warrants 4 M.A. No. 68/PUN/2022 Shree Someshwar SSK ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 rectification in the order of Tribunal dated 20-03-2019. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Application filed by assessee is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 11. In the result, Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 07 th day of Feb. 2023. Sd/- sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune; Dated, the 07 th day of February 2023. Ankam Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) concerned 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT ‘B’ Bench 5. Guard File BY ORDER, Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Pune. /// TRUE COPY /// 5 M.A. No. 68/PUN/2022 Shree Someshwar SSK ltd. A.Y. 2009-10 Date 1 Draft dictated on 03-02-2023 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 06-02-2023 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 07-02-2023 Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order 07-02-2023 Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 07-02-2023 Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order