ACIT LTU-2, CHENNAI V. Hyundai Motor India Limited, Kancheepuram

MA 76/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3241 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ’डी’ यायपीठ, चे नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी वी. द ु गा राव, या यक सद य एवं ी जी. मंज ु नाथ, लेखा सद य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M i s c. Ap p l i c ati on No. 7 6/ Ch n y/ 2 0 1 9 [ I n I T( T P ) A N o . 1 4 / C h n y / 2 0 1 8 ] ( नधा रणवष / A ss e ss m en t Yea r : 2 00 6 - 07 ) The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Tax Payer Unit-2, Chennai - 34. V s M/s. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., Plot No.H-1, SIPCOT Industrial Park, Irrungattukottai, Sriperumbudur Taluk Kancheepuram Dist. PIN: 602 117. PA N : A A A C H 2 3 6 4 M ( ाथ क /Petitioner) ( यथ /Respondent) ाथ क क ओरसे/ Petitioner by : Mr. Sajit Kumar, JCIT यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Mr.S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate स ु नवाई क तार ख/D a t e o f h e a r i n g : 12.08.2022 घोषणा क तार ख /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t : 12.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER G. MANJUNATHA, AM: The present Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the Revenue against the order of this Tribunal dated 04.02.2019 in IT(TP)A No.14/Chny/2018 relevant to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. We have heard both the parties and considered petition filed by the Revenue u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue has filed Misc. Application u/s.254(2) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07 on the ground that although, 2 M.A. No.76/Chny/2019 the Tribunal has allowed relief to the assessee by following its earlier order for the assessment year 2007-08, but facts are different for the impugned assessment years and thus, appeal should have been disposed off independently without any reference to order passed for earlier assessment year. 3. The learned A.R for the assessee, on the other hand, submitted that the Revenue has filed appeal against order of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment year and the Hon’ble High Court has admitted substantial question of law raised by the Revenue and therefore, submitted that since the Tribunal has followed its earlier order, it cannot be said that there is a mistake in the order of the Tribunal, when there is no difference in facts for both the assessment years. 4. Having heard both the parties and considered petition filed by the Revenue u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, we find that the Revenue has failed to make out prima-facie case of mistake apparent on record which can be rectified u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. But, what was sought through application filed by the Revenue u/s.254(2) of the 3 M.A. No.76/Chny/2019 Income Tax Act, 1961, is that the revenue wants to review decision rendered by the Tribunal in the given facts & circumstances of the case and such decision is based on the decision given by the Tribunal for earlier assessment years. Further, the Revenue has challenged order of the Tribunal before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the Hon’ble High Court has admitted substantial question of law raised by the Revenue. Since, the Tribunal has allowed relief to the assessee by following its decision in the assessee’s own case for earlier assessment year and such order has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble High Court and further, the Hon’ble High Court has admitted substantial question of law, we are of the considered view that when there is no difference in facts for the impugned assessment year, the Revenue cannot agitate order of the Tribunal u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, because scope of powers of the Tribunal u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is very limited inasmuch as, power can be exercised where prima-facie mistakes/errors in the order of the Tribunal. In this case, the Revenue seeks to review decision rendered by the Tribunal in the guise of rectification. In 4 M.A. No.76/Chny/2019 our considered view, which is not permissible u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue and thus, same is dismissed. 5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 th August, 2022 Sd/- Sd/- ( वी. द ु गा राव) (जी. मंज ु नाथ) (V.Durga Rao) (G.Manjunatha) या यक सद!य /Judicial Member लेखा सद!य / Accountant Member चे नई/Chennai, %दनांक/Dated 12 th August, 2022 DS आदेश क त)ल*प अ-े*षत/Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु .त (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आय ु .त/CIT 5. *वभागीय त न3ध/DR 6. गाड फाईल/GF.