DCIT, V. M/s Tayo Rolls Ltd.,

MA 8/RAN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2633 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 MA NO.08/RAN/13 M/S. TAYO ROLLS LTD INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT , AND HON'BLE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 08 /RAN/ 14 [ ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 07/RAN/12 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ] DCIT, CIR - 3,JSR VS. M/S. TAYO ROLLS LTD ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) FOR THE APPLICANT : : SHRI DEEPAK ROSHAN, SR.S.C/LD.DR FOR THE ASSESSEE : SHRI R.R MITTAL, LDAR DATE OF HEARING : 05 - 12 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 - 12 - 14 O R D E R SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION REQUESTING THE BENCH TO RECON SIDER THE DECISION DATED 08.05.2013 RENDERED IN APPEAL NO.07/RANCHI/2012 & C.O. NO.09/RAN/2012 RELATING TO AY 2006 - 07. 2. IN SHORT THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPEAL FILED FOR AY 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04 AND 2005 - 06 RE LATING TO THE ASSESSEE HEREIN IN ITA NO.S 338, 339/PAT/2009 & 209/RAN/2008, HAD, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30 - 07 - 2010, RESTORED THE ISSUE RELATING TO WARRANTY PROVISION TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. HOWEVER, WHILE DECIDING THE IMPUGNED APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAD DELETED THE IDENTICAL ADDITION. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION RENDERED FOR AY 2002 - 03 TO 2005 - 06. 2 MA NO.08/RAN/13 M/S. TAYO ROLLS LTD 3. ADMITTEDLY, THE ABOVE SAID PLEA M ADE BY THE REVENUE, IF ACCEPTED, WOULD LEAD TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY DISPUTE THAT THE DECISION TO ALLOW OR DISALLOW OR RESTORE A PARTICULAR MATTER IS TAKEN BY THE BENCH AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE FACTS PREVAILING IN A PARTICULAR YEAR. THE SAID DECISION CANNOT BE REVIEWED OR RECONSIDERED UNDER THE GARB OF ERROR AND IN FACT THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD . IT IS WELL ESTABL ISHED THAT THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE, NO ERROR APPARENT FROM THE RECORD HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE UNABLE TO ENTERTAIN THIS PETITION. 4. IN THE RE SULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SD/ - SD/ - [ H.L. KARWA ] [ B.R. BASKARAN ] PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED 05 - 12 - - 2014 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPLICANT : 2 RESPONDENT : I 3 . CIT, 4 . CIT(A), 5 . DR, ITAT, RANCHI **PP/SPS / TRUE COPY] BY ORDER, ASSTT REGISTRAR.