Bhagyanagar Oil Industries, Hyderabad V. ITO, Ward-9(2), Hyd, Hyderabad

MA 85/HYD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3450 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G SURYA PRASAD
• Assessee Lawyers: K L RATHI
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO.85/HYD/2015 ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.1178/HYD/2012 - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 M/S. BHAGYANAGAR OIL INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD. PAN AACFB5360J VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2), HYDERABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : MR. K.L. RATHI FOR REVENUE : MR. G. SURYA PRASAD DATE OF HEARING : 28.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2015 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M. BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE ALLEGED TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 12.06.2015 PASSE D IN ITA.NO.1178/HYD/2012. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. A S POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATION AND FURTHER REITERATED BY THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.6 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE 2 MA.NO.85/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1178/HYD/2012 BHAGYANAGAR OIL INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD. CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION , HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL WITHOUT CONSIDERING TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150(1). IT IS CONTENDED THAT SUCH NON- CONSIDERATION HAS GIVEN RISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE CONCLUS ION DRAWN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE IS RUNNING CONTR ARY TO VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS INCLUDING THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHADEO PRASAD RAIS (DECD. BY L.RS) VS. ITO, GORAKHPUR AND ANOTHER 192 ITR 402 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G. VISWANATHAM 172 ITR 401 (AP) . 3. THE LEARNED D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RE CORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE PRESENT M.A. IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS INVITED OUR ATT ENTION TO THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH NO.11 OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREI N THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.6 HAS BEE N DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER : 11. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.6 CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION, IT IS OBSERVED THAT RELIANCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS PLACED ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150(1). THE SAID PROVISIONS HOWEVER ARE APPLICABLE IN CASE OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OR RE-ASSESSMENT OR RE-COMPUTATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED INTER-ALIA IN AN APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE PRESENT CASE 3 MA.NO.85/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1178/HYD/2012 BHAGYANAGAR OIL INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD. HOWEVER IS NOT SUCH A CASE WHERE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IS ISSUED TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BUT IT IS A CASE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 143(3) AFRESH AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150(1) THUS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 254 AND THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.6 RELYING ON THE SAID PROVISIONS IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. WE THEREFORE, DISMISS GROUND NO.6 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND T HAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.6 OF ITS APPEAL WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HO LDING THAT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150(1) RELI ED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS STAND ON THE ISSU E WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE TH E ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) READ WITH SECTION 254 AND NOT UNDER SECTION 147/148 . THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 150(1) READ WITH SECTION 147 /148 THUS WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E AND THE RELIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID CASE LAWS WAS CLEARLY MISPLACED. IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.6 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL THUS WAS DECID ED BY THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY TAKING A SPECI FIC AND CLEAR VIEW ON MERIT AND THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ALLEGED BY T HE 4 MA.NO.85/HYD/2015 IN ITA.NO.1178/HYD/2012 BHAGYANAGAR OIL INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD. ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION CALLING FOR ANY RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2). WE THEREFORE, D ISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.08.2015 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (P.M.JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 28 TH AUGUST, 2015 VBP/- COPY TO 1. BHAGYANAGAR OIL INDUSTRIES, HYDERABAD. C/O. MR. K.L.RATHI, ADVOCATE, 3-5-144/5, EDEN GARDEN, HYDERABAD 500 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9( 2 ) , HYDERABAD 3. CIT(A) - VI , 6A, I.T. TOWERS, A.C. GUARDS, HYDERABAD 500 004. 4. CIT - VI , HYDERABAD 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE