DCIT, Erode V. NKCM Spinners P Ltd., Erode

MA 9/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4763 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Assessee Lawyers: DURAI PANDIAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Accommodation entries

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , . , $ % BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.9 & 10/MDS/2016 ( ./ IN I.T.A.NOS.974/MDS/2015 & 1259/MDS/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2009-10) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, ERODE. VS M/S. NKCM SPINNERS PVT.LD., 18, ALAGIRI SINGH STREET, FORT, ERODE-638 001 . PAN:AACCN7095D (PETITIONER) ( /RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MR. DURAIPANDIAN, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 29 TH JULY, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS ARE FILED BY T HE REVENUE PRAYING FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE BY REC ALLING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN ITA NO.974/MDS/201 5 & C.O. NO.61/MDS/2015 DATED 11.09.2015. AND ITA NO.1259/MDS/2013 & C.O.NO.154/MDS/2013 DATED 19.12.2014. 2. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRONEOUSLY HELD TH AT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED FROM M/S. UMANG COMMO TRADE PVT.LTD. AND TOP GRAIN VYAPA R PVT.LTD. WERE GENUINE WHILE AS IT WAS REVEALED FROM SURVEY 2 MP NOS.9 & 10/MDS/2016 AND SEARCH OPERATIONS THAT ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS W ERE ONLY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND THEREFORE NOT GENUINE. IT WAS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECALLED FOR RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE. 3. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTH ER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND ARGU ED THAT THERE WAS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. FROM THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL . THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS CONSCIOUSLY AFTER PERUSING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. EVEN IF THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE ERRONEOUS, I T CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE TRI BUNAL DOES NOT HAVE POWER FOR REVIEW OF ITS OWN ORDER. THEREFORE, THE 3 MP NOS.9 & 10/MDS/2016 MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DE VOID OF MERITS. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ) (G.PAVAN KUMAR) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAM ONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED THE 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .