The ACIT, Central Circle-3, Vadodara V. M/s. Blackberry Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara

MA 88/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4139 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MSSAUMYAPANDEYJAIN; WAYOFTHISMISCELLANEOUSAPPLICATIONISSEEKINGADIRECTION
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIJIGARADHYARU

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And SHRISIDDHARTHANAUTIYAL,JUDICIALMEMBER MANo.88/Ahd/2023 in आयकरअपीलसं./IT(SS)ANo.84/AHD/2021 धििाधरणवरध / Asstt.Year:2011-2012 A.C.I.T, CentralCircle-3, Vadodara. Vs. M/s.BlackberryVenturesPvt.Ltd., 11/C,JaishriNarayanCo-operative Hsg.Society, Subhanpura, Vadodara-390015. PAN:AAECB3532B (Applicant)(Respondent) Revenueby:MsSaumyaPandeyJain,AR Assesseeby:ShriJigarAdhyaru,AR सुिवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:05/01/2024 घोरणाकीतारीख /DateofPronouncement:31/01/2024 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: TherevenuebywayofthisMiscellaneousApplicationisseekingadirection tobeissuedtotheAOu/s150(1)oftheActforinitiatingtheincomeescaping assessmentproceedings. M.ANo.88/Ahd/2023 IT(SS)Ano.84/AHD/2020 Asstt.Year2011-12 2 2.Inthepresentcase,thedeletionmadebytheld.CIT-A,whichwas originallymadebytheAOu/s68oftheActwasupheldbytheITATonthe reasoningthattherewasnodocumentofincriminatingnaturefoundduringthe searchproceedingsrelatingtotheyearunderconsiderationbeingunabatedAY. TheITATinholdingsohasreferredtothejudgementoftheHon’bleApexCourtin thecaseofPCITvsAbhisarBuildwellPvt.Ltd.reportedin149taxmann.com399. However,Hon’bleSCinitsorderhasobservedthatthoughadditionintheabsence ofincriminatingmaterialintheunabatedAYcannotbemadebutthereisnobar forinitiatingtheproceedingsu/s147oftheAct,subjecttothefulfillmentof conditionsspecifiedtherein.Now,therevenueintheMAisseekingdirectionfrom theTribunalforinitiatingtheproceedingsu/s148oftheAct,inpursuancetothe provisionspecifiedu/s150(1)oftheAct.Thus,theLd.DRbeforeusprayedfor thedirectionasdiscussedabove. 3.Ontheotherhand,theLd.ARbeforeuscontendedthatthereisnomistake apparentfromtherecordpointedoutbytherevenueintheMiscellaneous ApplicationintheorderoftheITAT.Accordingly,theLd.ARsubmittedthatthe MiscellaneousApplicationfiledbytheassesseeisnotsustainable. 4.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Theprovisionsofsection254(2)oftheAct empowerstheITATtorectifyanytypeofmistakeinitsorderprovideditshould beapparentfromtherecord.Themistakeapparentfromtherecordhasbeenthe subjectmatterofcontinuouslitigation.TheHon’bleCourtstimeandagainhas definedtheapparentmistakesthroughjudicialpronouncements.Assuch,the apparentmistakereferstothoseerrorsorinconsistenciesthatisevidentfromthe faceofthedocuments/orderoftheauthorityinrespectofwhichtwoviewsarenot possible.Theapparentmistakecanbeintheformofcalculation,data,wrong assumptionoffacts,misinterpretationoftheprovisionsoflaw,misreportingof income,deduction,oranyotherrelevantinformation.However,themistakes M.ANo.88/Ahd/2023 IT(SS)Ano.84/AHD/2020 Asstt.Year2011-12 3 whichrequirearguments,debate,evaluationoflaw/factsinitsdetermination,the samecannotbereferredasmistakeapparentfromtherecord.Likewise,inthe eventofanyordergivenbytheITATwhichisallegedtobebasedonthewrong assumptionoffactsorlaw,butafterdueapplicationofmind,thenthesame cannotbetermedasamistakeapparentfromtherecord.Itisbecausetheview hasbeenformedbytheITATafterconsideringthenecessaryfactsandthelawon thepointofdispute,thenthesamecannotbereviewedagaininthegarbof apparentmistake.Inotherwords,theerrorofjudgementcannotbedescribedas amistakeapparentfromrecord.Insuchasituation,theaggrievedpartyshould approachthehigherforumfortheredressaloftheissueinvolvedinthedispute. 4.1Comingtothefactsonhand,attheoutset,wenotethattheHon’bleApex CourtinthecaseofAbhisarBuildwellPvt.Ltd.(Supra)hasnowheredirectedthe AOtoinitiatetheproceedingsu/s147oftheAct,withrespecttotheunabatedAY wherenodocumentofincriminatingnaturewasfound.Assuch,theHon’bleSC hassavedthepoweroftheRevenuewithrespecttounabatedAY,whereno documentofincriminatingnaturewasfound,toexercisetheauthoritysubjectto thefulfillmentoftheconditionsspecifiedu/s147/148oftheAct.Assuch,the Revenuehastodecidetotakeupthecallin-pursuanceoftheprovisionsofsection 147oftheAct.Atthisstage,itisimportanttonotethattherevenuehassoughta clarificationfromtheHon’bleApexCourtwithrespecttotheissueontheinitiation oftheproceedingsundersection147oftheActinthejudgmentofAbhisar BuildwellPvt.Ltd.(Supra)butthesamewasdismissedasreportedin150 taxmann.com257byobservingasunder: "(a)ThisHon'bleCourtmayclarifythatthewaiveroflimitationasstipulatedin section150(2)istobereadinrespectofthedateofissueofnoticefor reassessmentunder section148(i.e.)ifasonthedatetheassessmentundersection153Aorsection 153Cwaspassed,anoticeundersection148couldhavebeenissuedasperthe lawtheninforce,thenfreshproceedingsforreassessmentofsuchincomenot arisingfromtheincriminatingmaterialfoundinsearchcannowbeinitiated pursuanttothefindingsofthisHon'bleCourtinthepresentappeals/application andmayfurtherclarifyasfollows: M.ANo.88/Ahd/2023 IT(SS)Ano.84/AHD/2020 Asstt.Year2011-12 4 (i)Thatthefindingsinpara11and14wouldapplytoalltheproceedingspending inalltheforumsincludingbeforethisHon'bleCourt. (ii)ThateventhoughtheappealsoftheRevenuearedismissedinrespectof assessmentspassedunder153Aand153C,intheabsenceofincriminating materialfoundduringthesearch,inrespectofsuchincomewhichwasfoundto haveescapedassessmentotherthanthroughincriminatingmaterial,theassessing officerswouldbeentitledtoreassesssuchincomeintermsofsection147/148 readwithsection150. (iii)ThattheAssessingOfficer,mayiffoundnecessaryinitiatefreshproceedings within60daysfromdateofdisposalofthisapplicationfollowingtheprocedure stipulatedinsection147-151oftheActasisinforcenow." 2.Havinggonethroughtheavermentsmadeintheapplicationandtheprayers, weareoftheopinionthattheprayerssoughtcanbesaidtobeintheformof reviewwhichrequiresdetailconsiderationatlengthlookingintotheimportanceof thematter.Therefore,thepresentapplicationintheformofclarificationisnot entertainedandwerelegatetheRevenuetofileanappropriatereviewapplication forthereliefsoughtinthepresentapplicationandasandwhensuchreview applicationisfiledthesamecanbeheardintheopencourt. 3.Inviewoftheaboveandwithoutfurtherenteringintothemeritsofthe applicationand/orexpressinganythingonmeritsontheprayerssoughtinthe presentapplication,thepresentapplicationisnotentertainedandwerelegatethe Revenuetofileanappropriatereviewapplicationseekingthereliefswhichare soughtinthepresentapplicationandasandwhensuchreviewapplicationisfiled thesamebeheardanddecidedanddisposedofintheopencourt. Atthecostofrepetition,weobservethataswehavenotenteredintothemerits ofthepresentapplicationandwerelegatetheRevenuetofileanappropriate reviewapplication,thereviewapplicationbedecidedanddisposedofin accordancewithlawandonitsownmerits. Withthispresentapplicationstandsdisposedof. 4.2Assuch,inourhumbleunderstanding,therewasnodirectionissuedbythe Hon’bleApexCourtforinitiatingtheproceedingsundersection147oftheActwith respecttounabatedassessmentyearswherenodocumentofincriminatingnature wasfound.Accordingly,weareoftheviewthatthereisnoerrorintheorderof theITAT,withinthemeaningoftheprovisionsofsection254(2)oftheAct, requiringourinterference.Hence,theMiscellaneousApplicationfiledbythe revenueisherebydismissed. M.ANo.88/Ahd/2023 IT(SS)Ano.84/AHD/2020 Asstt.Year2011-12 5 5.Intheresult,theMiscellaneousApplicationfiledbytherevenueis dismissed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton31/01/2024atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (SIDDHARTHANAUTIYAL)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated31/01/2024 Manish