Sri Sun City Developers, Coimbatore V. CIT (A), Coimbatore

MA 87/CHNY/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6542 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 254(2)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एसएस िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी जगदीश, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ । Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Jagadish, Accountant Member M.A. No. 87/Chny/2022 [In I.T.A. No. 3256/Chny/2016] िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sri Sun City Developers, 89-A, East Lokmanya Street, R.S. Puram, Coimbatore 641 002. [PAN: ABIFS4607E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(3), Coimbatore. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Tarun, Advocate for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 07.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12.06.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee to recall the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 passed in I.T.A. No. 3256/Chny/2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The ld. AR Shri Tarun, Advocate submits that the bench completely overlooked the submissions given in writing with evidence to substantiate the plea for deletion of disputed addition. Further, he M.A. No. 87/Chny/22 2 argued that the bench had given a plain finding, which is repetition of the findings of the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR drew our attention to para Nos. 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the impugned order and argued that non- consideration of stand of the petitioner/assessee morefully brought out in the written submissions filed during the course of hearing with evidence constitute mistake apparent on record. 3. The ld. DR Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT objected to the filing of the Miscellaneous Application and argued that there is no mistake apparent on record for interference under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. If this Tribunal intervene in such type of applications, then 90% of the orders would be recalled on the ground of non-consideration of the stand of the assessee. The ld. DR argued that the Tribunal passed well reasoned order, which confirmed the order of the ld. CIT(A) for failure to substantiate the payment with proof. He prayed to dismiss the Miscellaneous Application. 4. Upon hearing both the parties and on perusal of the impugned order dated 21.02.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench with that of the contentions made in the Miscellaneous Application, we note that, no reference of mistake apparent on record, to be rectified under M.A. No. 87/Chny/22 3 section 254(2) of the Act, was pointed out in the Miscellaneous Application as well as submissions during the course of hearing. The only contention of the ld. AR is that, the assessee filed written submission along with evidence in substantiating the payment, which was not considered by the Coordinate Bench. As discussed above, the Coordinate Bench discussed the issue in detail from para 5 to 7 along with reasons given by the Assessing Officer, the ld. CIT(A) and held that the assessee failed to substantiate the amount of ₹.16,34,700/- paid to Shri K. Chinnasamy in cash and the same was part and parcel of payment made by the assessee towards purchase cost, which clearly demonstrates, evidence and submissions made and placed before the Coordinate Bench during the course of hearing were considered. We find that non-consideration of submissions of submission is not a mistake apparent on record. If we entertain assessee’s plea of seeking rectification for non-consideration of submissions, in our opinion, would constitute a review or amendment of order, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. Since no mistake apparent on record was pointed out by the ld. AR in the Miscellaneous Application as well as in his arguments, the Miscellaneous Application fails and is dismissed. M.A. No. 87/Chny/22 4 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 12 th June, 2024 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (JAGADISH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 12.06.2024 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.