ITO, W-6(3), Mohali V. Sh. Dalbir Singh, Chhajumajra

MA 75/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1858 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NAVDEEP SINGH O E
• Assessee Lawyers: HARJINDER SINGH

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , ! ' # $ %! , BEFORE: SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.75/CHD/2019 IN ./ ITA NO.313/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE I.T.O., WARD 6(3), MOHALI. SH.DALBIR SINGH, S/O SH.RAM SINGH, VILLAGE CHHAJUMAJRA, KHARAR. ./PAN NO: DSHPS3473M /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARJINDER SINGH, SR.DR ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI NAVDEEP SINGH, O.E ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 24.05.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.06.2019 /ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN MOVED BY THE ITO, CIRCLE 6(3), MOHALI/THE CONCERNED A.O. STATING THEREIN THAT THE ORDER DATED 7.9.2018 OF THIS TRIBUNAL, PASSED IN ITA NO.313/CHD/2018, RELEVANT T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE CONCERNED ACIT/ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE OF THE GRO UNDS MENTIONED IN THE APPLICATION. MA NO.75/CHD/2019 A.Y.2013-14 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTI ES. THE LD. DR HAS BEEN FAIR ENOUGH TO ADMIT THAT THE A .O. HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 7.9.2018. AN APPLICATI ON U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE A CT) CAN BE MOVED IF THERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NO POW ER OF REVIEW OF ITS ORDER. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT CAN BE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. RAMESH ELEC TRIC AND TRADING CO.' (1993) 203 ITR 497 (BOM.), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T. S. BALARAM, ITO V. VOLKART BROTHERS' [1971] 82 ITR 50 AND FURTHER RELY ING UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS HAS CATEGO RICALLY HELD THAT THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE M ISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND P ATENT; MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AN D NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMEN TS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHIC H THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. MOREOVER, IF THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE CONCERNED ITO /A.O., MA NO.75/CHD/2019 A.Y.2013-14 3 THE PROPER COURSE IS TO FILE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE H IGHER AUTHORITY I.E. HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THE RECTIFICATIO N APPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT IS NOT MAINTAINAB LE ONLY BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT ACCEPTABL E TO THE A.O. 3. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF 'UOI AN D OTHERS VS. KAMALAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION' AIR 1992 SC 711 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT 'ACCEPTABLE' TO T HE DEPARTMENT IN-ITSELF IS AN OBJECTIONABLE PHRASE AND IS NOT A GROUND FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE SAME UNLESS ITS OPERAT ION HAS BEEN SUSPENDED BY A COMPETENT COURT. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT I N THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE SAME IS, THE REFORE, DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ' # $ %! (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER )' /DATED: 17 TH JUNE, 2019 * ! * &) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : MA NO.75/CHD/2019 A.Y.2013-14 4 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR