M/s. Mahavir Foods Pvt. Ltd., Navsari V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Navsari

MA 68/SRT/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2327 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2022
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Miscellaneous Application No.68/SRT/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.28/SRT/2016) (िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/s Mahavir Foods Pvt. Ltd.,Sarvoday Building, Opp. Railway Station, Navsari Vs. The ITO, Ward-3, Navsari, Aayakar Bhawan, Nr. Charpul Police Chowki, Navsari ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6330 M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri Abhishek Gautam – Sr.DR सुनवाईकᳱतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 21/01/2022 घोषणाकᳱतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 05/04/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has sought to point out that a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 16.05.2019 in ITA No.28/AHD/2016 for assessment year 2007-08. 2. The case of the assessee, in this Miscellaneous Application is that Tribunal has not adjudicated the various issues raised by the assessee in favour of assessee. Although the Tribunal has passed the order on merit on all the issues, however certain written submission of the assessee has Page | 2 MA No.68/SRT/2019 (a/o ITA No.28/AHD/16 M/s Mahavir Foods Pvt. Ltd. not been considered. Therefore, the order of Tribunal dated 16.05.2019 may be recalled. 3. On the other hand, Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (Sr.DR) for the Revenue, submits that Tribunal has adjudicated assessee’s appeal on merit. Therefore, the ratio decided by the Tribunal on merit should not be rectified. The Ld. Sr-DR pointed out that Tribunal cannot review its own order. Therefore, MA filed by the assessee may be dismissed. 4. None appeared on behalf of assessee nor filed an adjournment application although the notice of hearing was sent to assessee through RPAD. However, the assessee has submitted written submission before the Tribunal. We have heard Ld. SR-DR and have gone through the written submission filed by assessee and materials available on record. We note that Tribunal has adjudicated various grounds raised by the assessee on merits. The Tribunal has not passed an ex parte order. The Tribunal has considered the submission of the assessee. We have also examined that Tribunal has adjudicated all the grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, we note that there is no mistake apparent from the record in the order passed by the Tribunal dated 16.05.2019. 5. After considering the facts of the case and written submission of the assessee, we note that there is no mistake apparent on record in the order of the Tribunal dated 16.05.2019. A plain meaning of the word “apparent” is that it must be something which appears to be ex facie and it is incapable of argument and debate. Thus, section 254(2) of the Act does not cover any mistake which may be discovered by a complicated process of investigation, argument or proof. Power to rectify an order, u/s 254(2) of the Act is extremely limited and it is does not extend to correct error of law or re-appreciating factual findings. Page | 3 MA No.68/SRT/2019 (a/o ITA No.28/AHD/16 M/s Mahavir Foods Pvt. Ltd. 6. We note that the co-ordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of Prem Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd.14(3) New Delhi in M.A 130/Del/2012 for assessment year 2002-03, order dated 12.12.2012 held that failure of the Tribunal to consider argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion is not an error apparent on the record, although it may be an error of judgment. Further, in the grab of application for rectification, the assessee cannot be permitted to re-open and re-argue the whole matter which is beyond the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, considering the above facts, we dismiss the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee. We order accordingly. 7. In the result, M.A filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 05/04/2022 by placing the result on the Notice Board as per Rule 34(5) of the income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat/ᳰदनांक/ Date: 05/04/2022 Dkp outsourcing Sr.P.S/*SS Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat