ITO, Ward - 12(2), Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Irama Estate (P) Ltd., Kolkata

MA 87/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8717 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND , . ! . , '# ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI C. D. RAO, AM ] $$ '% $$ '% $$ '% $$ '% & & & & /M. A. NOS. 87 & 88/KOL/2011 IN $$ '% $$ '% $$ '% $$ '% & & & & /M. A. NOS. 26 & 27/KOL/2010 & & & & /IN I.T.A NOS. 1465 & 1466/KOL/2007 %' () %' () %' () %' ()/ // / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 & 2002-03 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-12(2), KOLKATA. VS. M/S. I RAMA ESTATE PVT. LTD. (' /APPLICANT ) (+,-./ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 01.06.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01.06.2012 ' / 0 ' /FOR THE APPLICANT: SHRI A. K. PRAMANICK +,-. / 0 ' /FOR THE RESPONDENT: N O N E '1 / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM/ , : THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED IN MA NOS. 26 & 27/K/2010 BY TRIBUNAL DATED 03.06.2011 IN ITA NOS.1645 & 1466/K/2007 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2002-03. 2. THROUGH THIS MISC. APPLICATION REVENUE HAS REQUI RED THE BENCH TO RECALL ITS ORDERS IN MA NOS. 26 & 27/K/2010 DATED 03.06.2011. ACCORDING TO REVENUE, THE TRIBUNAL FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE FACTS ADJUDICATED WRONGLY ON TH E ORDER PASSED U/S. 147/144 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO REVENUE, A MISC. APPLICATION WAS FILED STATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S. 154 OF T HE ACT AND NOT ORDER PASSED U/S. 147/144 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THESE TWO MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE AGAINST MA NOS. 26 & 27/K/2010 DATED 03.06.2011 AND THIS IS SECOND MA EXACTLY ON SAME IS SUE IN MA NOS. 26 & 27/K/2010. THE REVENUE HAS CONTENDED THE SAME ISSUE WHETHER WE CAN ENTERTAIN THESE MAS OR NOT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE POWER EXERCISABLE U/S. 254(2) IS SUBJ ECT TO TWO LIMITLATIONS I.E. FIRSTLY, IT HAS TO BE CONFIMRED TO RECITFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECO RD. SECONDLY, IT HAS TO BE CONFINED TO AN ORDER PASSED U/S. 254(1) AND NOT U/S. 254(2) OF TH E ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE POWER EXERCISABLE U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT IS NOT AVA ILABLE TO BE EXERCISED FOR AMENDING ANY OTHER ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL UNDER ANY SECTION OTHER TH AN SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFERRED BY SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT IS FOR RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD CANNOT BE EXERCISED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO RECAL L ITS ORDER U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ORDER U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT DOES NOT EXIST DE HORSE THE ORDER U/S. 254(1) OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY, ORDER U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT I.E. RECALLING ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO BE 2 MA NO. 87-88/K/2011 IRAMA ESTATE PVT. LTD. A. Y 2000-01 & 2002-03 RECALLED U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THIS VIEW HAS ALS O SUPPORTED THE DECISION OF HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITAT (1992) 196 I TR 683 (ORR). HENCE, WE DISMISS THESE TWO MISC. APPLICATIONS OF REVENUE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES MISC. PETITIONS STA ND DISMISSED. 4. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT . SD/- SD/- . ! . , '# , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !# !# !# !#) )) ) DATED : 1 ST JUNE, 2012 23 %45 6 JD.(SR.P.S.) '1 / +$ 7'$(8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . ' /APPLICANT ITO, WARD-12(2), KOLKATA. 2 +,-. / RESPONDENT M/S. IRAMA ESTATE PVT. LTD., 77/2A, HAZRA ROAD, 4 TH FLOOR, KOLKATA-29. 3 . 1% ( )/ THE CIT(A) , KOLKATA 4. CIT, KOLKATA 5 . ?@ +% / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA ,$ +/ TRUE COPY, '1%A/ BY ORDER, 5 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .