M/s. Vivekanand Society of Education and, Jammu V. The Income-tax Officer, Jammu

MA 90/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3528 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Rectification of order
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M. A. NO.90 (ASR)/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.305(ASR)/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 PAN: AAATV8883A M/S. VIVEKANAND SOCIETY OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, KACHI CHAWANI, JAMMU. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO.1(3), JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA.(ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL (DR ) DATE OF HEARING: 06.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT: 10.11.2015 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 13 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. 2. THE LEARNED AR, AT THE OUTSET, INVITED OUR ATTEN TION TO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE HEARIN G OF THE CASE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ARGUMENTS TAKEN BY THE LEARNED AR, AT THE TIME OF O RIGINAL HEARING. EXPLAINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TWO SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS WHICH WERE HAVING TWO SEP ARATE PAN NOS. AND TWO 2. M.A. NO 90(ASR)/2014 (ARISING OUT O F ITA NO.305(ASR)/2010) ASST. YEAR. 200 5-06 SEPARATE TAN NOS. AND RECEIPTS OF BOTH THE INSTITUT IONS WAS LESS THAN RS.1,00,00,000/-. THEREFORE, SEPARATELY THE ASSESSE E WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(23C)(IV) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED A R ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION ON LIST OF COMPILATION OF JUDGMENTS WHICH HE CLAIME D THAT THESE JUDGMENTS WERE CITED BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND THESE JU DGMENTS WERE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SPECIFICALLY INVITED OUT ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF DELHI BENCH (D) IN THE CASE OF JAT EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. ITO, R EPORTED IN (2013) 37 TAXMAN.COM 187. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE CASE LAWS WERE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE WHICH THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD I GNORED. ON OUR DIRECTION THE LEARNED AR WAS ASKED TO READ THE FINDINGS OF TR IBUNAL CONTAINED IN PARA 10 ONWARDS WHICH HE READLY DID. ON HEARING THE FINDING S OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE ORDER AFTE R TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES INCLUDING JUDGMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE PARA 10 ITSELF AND THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED THE ORDER AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL ARGUMENTS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND THEREFORE, ANY DECISI ON CONTRARY TO THE DECISION ARRIVED BY TRIBUNAL WILL AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF ITS OWN DECISION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE HO NBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TAMILNADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. TC (A) NO.156/2006 HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. WHE N THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DECIDED AN ISSUE BY APPLYING ITS MIND AGAINST THE A SSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THERE WA S NO NECESSITY WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. E VEN AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF 3. M.A. NO 90(ASR)/2014 (ARISING OUT O F ITA NO.305(ASR)/2010) ASST. YEAR. 200 5-06 THE JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE COULD NOT FIND A SINGLE REASON IN THE WHOLE ORDER AS TO HOW THE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED AND FOR W HAT REASONS. THERE IS NO APPARENT ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THEREB Y THE TRIBUNAL SAT AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY OVER ITS OWN ORDER. IT IS COMPL ETELY IMPERMISSIBLE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS TRAVELED OUT OF ITS JURISDICTION TO AL LOW A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IN THE NAME OF REVIEWING ITS OWN ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION , THE TRIBUNAL REVIEWED ITS EARLIER ORDER AND ALLOWED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIO N WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEM PLATE REHEARING OF THE APPEAL FOR A FRESH DISPOSAL AND DOING SO, WOULD OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAKES AND POWER TO REVIEW THE O RDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 2 54(2) OF THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE REHEARING OF THE APPEAL FOR A FRESH DIS POSAL AND DOING SO, WOULD OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER OF REC TIFY THE MISTAKES AND POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SCOPE AN D AMBIT OF THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2) IS LIMITED AND NARROW. IT IS REST RICTED TO RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. RECALLING THE OR DER OBVIOUSLY WOULD MEAN PASSING OF A FRESH ORDER. RECALLING OF THE ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SEC TION 254(2) OF THE ACT. ONLY GLARING AND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD ALONE CAN BE RECTIFIED AND HENCE ANYTHING DEBATABLE CANNOT BE A SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED: 10.11.2015. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 4. M.A. NO 90(ASR)/2014 (ARISING OUT O F ITA NO.305(ASR)/2010) ASST. YEAR. 200 5-06 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S. VIVEKANAND SOCIETY OF EDUCATION & RESEARCH, JAMMU. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), JAMMU. 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.