Smt. Naynaben Gautamkumar Sheth, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Ahmedabad

MA 90/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4170 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G A MEHTA
• Section: 148; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: S H RI SHAILENDRA KR. YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHR I ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SMT. NAYNABEN GAUTAMKUMAR SHETH, 6/9, VITRAG SOCIETY, P.T. COLLEGE ROAD, PALDI, AHMEDABAD PAN: CCRPS8870D (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WD - 11(2 ), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI G.A. MEHTA , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 06 - 05 - 2 016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 - 05 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS M.A. HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 30 - 06 - 2015 IN RESPECT OF ITA NO. 327/AHD/2012 FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08. M.A. NO . 9 0 / A HD/20 1 5 (IN ITA NO. 327/AHD/2012 ) A S SESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 M.A. NO.90/AHD/2015 (IN ITA NO. 327 /AHD/20 12) A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO SMT. NAYANABEN GAUTAMKUMAR SHETH VS. ITO 2 2. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE M.A. AND FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DECISIONS CITED IN THE PAPER BOOK HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL . IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE DATED 13 - 11 - 2009 U/S. 148 AFTER OBTAINING THE SA TISFACTION OF A DDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THOUGH IT WAS NOT NECESSARY AS PER SECTION 151(2) OF THE ACT AND THUS ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148. HE SUBMITTED THAT THAT THERE IS NO FINDING OF THE B ENCH ON THI S ISSUE AND THUS THERE IS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DATED 30 - 06 - 2015 B E RECTIFIED/RECALLED. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AND TH ERE IS NO APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER THAT REQUIRES ANY INTERFERENCE AND IF THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW , WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE M.A. OF THE ASSESSEE BE D ISMISSED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECO RD. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS STATED IN M.A. IS T HAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING THE IMPUGNED APPEAL . IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND N OT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE M.A. NO.90/AHD/2015 (IN ITA NO. 327 /AHD/20 12) A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO SMT. NAYANABEN GAUTAMKUMAR SHETH VS. ITO 3 ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF RECTIFICATION, LOOK INTO SOME OTHER CIRCUMST ANCES WHICH WOULD SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION SO ARRIVED AT. THE MISTAKE WHICH THE TRIBUNAL IS ENTITLED TO CORRECT IS NOT AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT BUT A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD ITSELF. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH MISTAKE WAS APPARE NT FROM THE RECORD. FURTHER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER AS HELD BY HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC & TRADING CO. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (BOM.) IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINC E THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA. NO. 327/AHD/2012 ORDER DATED 30.06.2015 AND THUS THE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATION BEARING NO. 90 /AHD /2015 IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 10 - 05 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAILENDRA KR. YADAV ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AHMEDABAD : DATED 10 /05 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE M.A. NO.90/AHD/2015 (IN ITA NO. 327 /AHD/20 12) A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO SMT. NAYANABEN GAUTAMKUMAR SHETH VS. ITO 4 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,