SHAPOORJI PALLONJI INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL COmpany LIMITED , MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(3), MUMBAI

MA 897/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6771 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V JUSTIN LD
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVESH CHAWLA LD
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

MA NO. 897/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7475/MUM/2013 SHAPOORJI PALLONJI INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL CO.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . , , BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.897/MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7475/MUM/2013) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SHAPOORJI PALLONJI INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL CO.LTD. 41/44 MINOO DESAI MARG COLABA, MUMBAI 400 005 / VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX CIRCLE 3(3) 6 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 609 AAYKAR BHAVAN M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO.AABCS-4370-B ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DIVESH CHAWLA, LD. AR REVENUE BY : SHRI V.JUSTIN, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 04/05/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/06/2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE AS SESSEE SEEKS RECTIFICATION / RECALL OF THE TRIBUNAL ITA NO.7475/ MUM/2013 DATED 21/06/2017. MA NO. 897/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7475/MUM/2013 SHAPOORJI PALLONJI INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL CO.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 2 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE [AR], BY WAY OF THIS PETITION, INTER-ALIA, PRIMARILY PLEADED THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT LD. AO DID NOT RECORD THE SATISFACTION AS ENVISAGED BY SECTION 14A BEFORE APPLYING RULE 8D AN D DISREGARDED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD DUR ING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CONSTITUTE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD . IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED ON CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS TO EXCLUSION OF STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS / INVESTMENTS IN SUBSIDIARIES HAVE COMPLETELY BEEN IGNORED. PER CONTRA, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEE N RENDERED AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE MATTER AND THERE FORE, THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER WHICH REQUIRE RECTIFICATION. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF RESPEC TIVE REPRESENTATIVES AND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT T HIS APPLICATION IS NOTHING BUT A REVIEW PETITION IN NATURE. THE ASSESS EE IS MERELY SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE ORDER ON THE SAME VERY FACTS AND AR GUMENTS WHICH WERE ADVANCED DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WHICH HAS DULY BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE RENDERING THE DECISION. THE PLEA O F NON RECORDING OF SATISFACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH IN PARA-9 OF THE ORDER. UPON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER IN QUESTION, IT IS QUITE EVIDE NT THAT THE DECISION WAS RENDERED WITH DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AFTER CONSIDE RING THE FACTUAL MATRIX, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, ARGUM ENTS ADVANCED DURING HEARING, JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE RESPECTIVE MA NO. 897/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7475/MUM/2013 SHAPOORJI PALLONJI INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL CO.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 3 REPRESENTATIVES AND AFTER APPRECIATING THE ORDERS O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FROM ALL ANGLES. THE LD. AR HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY SINGLE MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD AND WHICH REQUIRE REC TIFICATION. 4. BEFORE CONCLUDING, WE FIND THAT THE SCOPE OF REC TIFICATION, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 254(2), IS IN A VERY NARROW COM PASS AND THE SAME COULD BE RESORTED ONLY IN CASE THERE WAS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND NOT OTHERWISE. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT STAT UTORY AUTHORITY CANNOT EXERCISE THE POWER OF REVIEW UNLESS SUCH POW ER IS EXPRESSLY CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE OR OTHERWISE. WE FIND THAT THIS POWER IS MISSING FOR THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, THE PLEAS RAISED BY THE LD. AR COULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED FROM ANY ANGLE. 5. FINDING NOT EVEN AN IOTA OF CREDENCE IN THE APPL ICATION, THE SAME STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JUNE,2018 SD/- SD/- (C.N.PRASAD) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 22.06.2018 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH MA NO. 897/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.7475/MUM/2013 SHAPOORJI PALLONJI INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL CO.LTD ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %&' / THE APPELLANT 2. (&' / THE RESPONDENT 3. * ( % ) / THE CIT(A) 4. * / CIT CONCERNED 5. , , % , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. -. / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI