Kadwa S.S.K. Ltd., Nashik V. Dy. Comm. of Income-tax, Nashik

MA 93/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves multiple Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) filed by different assessees against a consolidated order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune, concerning the assessment years 1998-99, 2007-08, 2009-10, and 2013-14. The main issue in these MAs was the Tribunal's earlier decision to restore the matter of 'Excessive sugar cane price' to the Assessing Officer, based on a Supreme Court judgment. The assessees contended that the Supreme Court did not consider certain grounds relevant to their cases, which led to the filing of these MAs seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal, however, found no merit in the assessees' arguments and dismissed the applications, reaffirming the binding nature of the Supreme Court's decision under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137802 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2019
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 57 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. No. M.A.No./ITA No./C.O. No. Name of Assessee Name of Respondent A.Yrs. 1 M.A. No.93/PUN/2022 in ITA No.1631/PUN/2011 Kadwa S.S.K. Ltd., Rajamarm Nagar, Materewadi, Dindori, Nashik PAN : AAAAK1052K DCIT, Nashik 1998-99 2-3 M.A. Nos.87 & 88/PUN/2022 in ITA Nos.2182 & 2183/PUN/2012 Jawahar Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Hupari, Shri Kallappanna Awadenagar, Hupari-Yalgud, Tal. Hatkanangale, Dist. Kolhapur 416203 PAN : AAAAJ0571C DCIT, Ichalkaranji Circle,, Ichalkaranji 2007-08 2009-10 4 M.A. No.163/PUN/2022 in ITA No.1897/PUN/2017 Mohanrao Shinde Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., A/P. Arag, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli 416 401 PAN : AACAM0354L ACIT, Circle-1, Sangli 2013-14 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These four Miscellaneous Applications have been moved by different assessees against the consolidated order dated 14-03-2019 passed by the Tribunal u/s.254(1) of the Income-tax Assessee by: Shri Prasanna Joshi Revenue by: Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date of hearing 17-02-2023 Date of pronouncement 20-02-2023 M.A.No.93/PUN/2022 and others 2 Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment years captioned above. Since a common issue is raised in these Miscellaneous Applications, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The ld. AR submitted that the Tribunal fell in error in deciding the issue of `Excessive sugar cane price’ restoring the matter to the file of Assessing Officer (AO) to be decided in consonance with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (2019) 103 taxmann.com 57 (SC). The point taken up by the assessees in these M.As. is that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while deciding the issue, did not take into consideration the subject matter of certain grounds raised by the assessee, being, that the ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring prices paid by private sector sugar factories, which are not disallowed, while allowing only SMP+ 5A as cost of sugarcane purchased to the appellant. It was, therefore, urged that the Tribunal order be rectified accordingly. The ld. DR strongly opposed the ld. AR’s contention. M.A.No.93/PUN/2022 and others 3 3. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, it is seen that the issue of `Excessive sugar cane price’ in the batch of appeals disposed off vide impugned order has been determined in terms of the judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (supra). The contention of the ld. AR that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not consider certain contentions before deciding the issue in the way it has been decided and hence, the rectification should be carried out, in our considered opinion, is farfetched and devoid of merit. Once a particular issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a particular manner, no one can be allowed to argue that the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not determine the issue correctly. Article 141 of the Constitution of India makes the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court binding on all courts in the territory of India leaving no scope for anyone pointing out some mistake therein in any judicial proceedings. As the Bench passed the order u/s 254(1) of the Act in accordance with the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we hold that no mistake, much less a mistake apparent from record, can be traced in it requiring rectification. M.A.No.93/PUN/2022 and others 4 4. No other issue raised in the M.As was pressed by the ld. AR. Such grounds are accordingly dismissed. 5. Coming to MA No. 93/Pun/2022, it has been prayed that decision in the miscellaneous application against ITA No. 1492/PUN/2011 be adopted for the extant MA. However, no specific mistake has been brought to the notice of the bench which requires any rectification in the impugned order. The Bench is not aware of the facts and decision in ITA No. 1492/PUN/2011 and no copy of such original or the MA order has been placed on record. Further it is not shown that how the decision in that appeal is relevant to the instant appeal. In view of the foregoing, we are not inclined to disturb the impugned order. 6. In the result, all the Miscellaneous Applications are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20 th February, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 20 th February, 2023 सतीश M.A.No.93/PUN/2022 and others 5 आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. थ / The Respondent 3. The CIT concerned 4. 5. The Pr. CIT concerned DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune Date 1. Draft dictated on 17-02-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 17-02-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *