M/s Big Bags International Pvt Ltd, Bangalore V. Deputy commissioner of Income tax, Bangalore

MA 77/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4640 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SRINIVAS J
• Keywords: Bad and doubtful debts

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC.PETN.NO.77/BANG/2016 (IN ITA NO. 1041/ BANG/20 1 4 ) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 0 - 11 ) M/S.BIG BAGS INTERNATI ONAL PVT. LTD. NO.61, NADAKERAPPA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VISWADEEPAM POST, PEENYA, BANGALORE - 560091. PAN: AABCB 4004 D VS. PETITIONER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 11(2), BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENT PETITIONER BY : SHRI NARENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SRINIVAS, JCIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 19 /0 8 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 /0 8 /2016 O R D E R PER I NTURI RAMA RAO, AM : THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY PRAY ING THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER IN ITA NO.1014/BANG/2014 DATED 06/05/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE PETITIONER S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.673/BANG/2013 DATED 2 1/08/2014 FOR THE IMMEDIATELY MP NO . 77/ BANG/201 6 PAGE 2 OF 4 PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR VIZ., 2009 - 10 WHEREIN ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS, THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED BY THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY, NON - CONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE PETITIONER S OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, CONSTITUTES A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHA NGE LTD., (305 ITR 227). THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1041/BANG/2014 DATED 06/05/2016 MAY BE AMENDED EXERCISING THE POWER VESTED U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' FOR SH ORT]. 2. WE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE OF BAD DEBTS WAS DEALT WITH BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA.9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN THIS TRIBUNAL, HAVING REGARD TO THE ASSESSEE S OWN SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HELD THAT THERE WAS NEVER A DEBT DUE TO THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY AND RENDERED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.36(1)(VII) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. UNDOUBTEDLY, THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEE S OWN CASE IN ITA NO.674/BANG/2013 DATED 21/8/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 WAS RELIED UPON DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM FOR BAD DEBTS [IT IS WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE PETITION AS ITA NO.673/BANG/2013]. WHEN THIS TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE SAID MP NO . 77/ BANG/201 6 PAGE 3 OF 4 CLAIM CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BAD DEBT, THE QUESTION OF FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH WHICH IS ON THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT DOES NOT ARISE. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER THAT ON ACCOUNT OF NON - CONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH RENDERS THE ORDER VULNERABLE FOR RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS MISCONCEIVED AS THIS TRIBUNAL GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE CLAIM WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF BAD DEBT, BASED ON THE ASSESSEE S OWN SUBMISSIONS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AR E ONLY ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSIONS. WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW THERE CAN BE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF FACTS OF A CLAIM. THIS SUBMISSION IS ONLY MADE WITH THE INTENTION OF MISLEADING THIS COURT. THE ATTEMPT MADE BY THE PETITION IS NOTHING BU T RE - ARGUING THE APPEAL ALREADY DECIDED. I T GOES TO PROVE THAT THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER HAD TAKEN A CHANCE OF RE - ARGUING THE APPEAL ALREADY DECIDED. THE POWER UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS CONFINED TO A RECTIFICATION OF A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECO RD. THE TRIBUNAL MUST CONFINE ITSELF WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS. SECTION 254(2) IS NOT A CARTE BLANCHE FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO CHANGE ITS OWN VIEW BY SUBSTITUTING A VIEW WHICH IT BELIEVES SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE FIRST INSTANCE. SECTION 254(2) IS NOT A MA NDATE TO UNSETTLE DECISIONS TAKEN AFTER DUE REFLECTION. THE PROVISION MP NO . 77/ BANG/201 6 PAGE 4 OF 4 EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO CORRECT MISTAKES, ERRORS AND OMISSIONS APPARENT ON THE FACE. THE SECTION IS NOT AN AVENUE TO REVIVE A PROCEEDING BY RECOURSE TO A DISINGENUOUS ARGUMENT NOR DOE S IT CONTEMPLATE A FRESH LOOK AT A DECISION RECORDED ON MERITS, HOWSOEVER APPEALING AN ALTERNATE VIEW MAY SEEM. THUS, THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED 3. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH AUGUST , 2016 S D/ - S D/ - (VIJAY PAL RAO) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE : BANGALORE D A T E D : 26/ 08 /2016 SRINIVASULU, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) - II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE