M/s. Geofin Investments (P) Ltd, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

MA 7/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5356 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H K LAL SENIOR
• Keywords: Rectification of order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.07/DEL/2011 (IN ITA NO.3978/DEL./2009) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S. GEOFIN INVESTMENTS PVT. LIMITED, VS. DCIT, CI RCLE 12 (1), 4/42, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN : AABCG8906H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SATISH GOEL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI H.K. LAL, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 25 4(2) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BENCH C , NEW DELHI IN ITA NO.3978/DEL/2009 DATED 13.10.2010. IN THE MISC. AP PLICATION, ASSESSEE HAVE PRAYED TO RECALL THE ORDER TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY WITH REFERENCE TO THE ITAT F BENCH, MUMBAI SO THAT HE CAN MAKE SUBMISSIONS T O DISTINGUISH THE RATIO. THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED BY RELYING ON F BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF MACINTOSH FINA NCE ESTATES LTD. VS. ACIT 12 SOT 324 (MUMBAI). 2. LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF J.N. SAHAI VS. ITAT AND OTHERS 257 ITR 16. MA NO.7/DEL/2011 (IN ITA NO.3978/DEL./2009) 2 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE HOLD THAT THE P OWER OF TRIBUNAL TO AMEND AN ORDER PASSED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECT ION 254 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS LIMITED. SUCH POWER OF AMENDMENT IS CONFINE D TO RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE ITAT HAS NO INHERENT POWER OF REVIEW. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSEES PLEA IN APPLICATION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT BY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTEN TION, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW THE ORDER. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON MER ITS, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPRESSED POWER OF REVIEW, WE ARE UN ABLE TO AGREE WITH THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE MADE IN THE APPLICATION FILED. WH ILE EXERCISING THE POWER OF SECTION 254(2), THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO AMEND HIS ORDER AND ALSO HAS NO POWER TO RECALL THE ORDER. THE REVIEW OF THE OWN O RDER BY THE TRIBUNAL IS FORBIDDEN IN LAW. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE DISMI SS THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MADE UNDER SECTION 254(2). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 11 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.