JYOTI CERAMIC INDUSTRIES P.LTD, V. DCIT 5(2),

MA 94/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0957 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: L
• Next Hearing Date: 06-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

L IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL L BE NCH, MUMBAI .. , , BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, J M 94 /MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1087/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) JYOTI CERAMIC INDUSTRIES P. LTD, B-603, PARLE UDYAN CO-OP. HSG. SOC. LTD 25, PARK ROAD, VILE PARLE(EAST), MUMBAI. 400 057 / VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-5(2) ROOM NO. 571, 5 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI .400 020 # . / PAN : AAACJ0247P (APPLICANT) .. RESPONDENT ) DEPARTMENT B Y : SHRI K. GOPAL ASSESSEE B Y : SHR I MEERJA PRADHAN $ % & '( / DATE OF HEARING : 06-09-2013 )*+, & '( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-09-2013 - / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . : BY THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKES ALLEGED TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21.01.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1087/MUM/2010. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AN D ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION AND FURTHER REITERATED BY THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE LOT OF 1000 KGS. WAS SUPPLIED TO M/S TECHNO CERAMIC INC. AT THE OLD RATE EVEN AFT ER THE PRICE REVISION TO FULFILL THE COMMITMENT WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR WANT OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OVERLOOKING THE COPY OF LETTER RECEIVED FROM M/S TE CHNO CERAMIC INC. REQUESTING TO SUPPLY THE SAID LOT AT OLD RATE PLACED ON RECORD A T PAGE 82 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE NON CONSIDER ATION OF THE SAID EVIDENCE HAS GIVEN MA 94/MUM/2013 2 RISE TO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH IS LIA BLE TO BE RECTIFED U/S 254(2). WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE STAND TAKEN ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS T HAT THE LOT OF 1000 KGS. WAS SUPPLIED TO M/S TECHNO CERAMIC INC. AT THE OLD RATE EVEN AFT ER THE PRICE REVISION TO FULFILL THE COMMITMENT AND SINCE THE LETTER OF M/S TECHNO CERA MIC INC RELIED UPON IN SUPPORT OF THIS STAND MAKING REQUEST TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPL Y THE LOT AT OLD RATE WAS FOUND TO BE NOT SUFFICIENT BY THE TRIBUNAL TO ESTABLISH THAT TH ERE WAS ANY COMMITMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LOT WAS SUPPLIED AT OLD RATE TO FU LFILL THE COMMITMENT, THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR WA NT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS THUS NO MISTAKE MUCH LESS A MIST AKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATION. THE SAID MISC. APPLICATION IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED BEIN G DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8.09.2013 . - & )*+, $ . / 0 18.09.2013 * & % SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) ( P.M. JAGTAP ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ 7% MUMBAI ; / DATED 18 / 09/2013 .../ A.K.PATEL , PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 8 #9 / THE APPELLANT 2. :;#9 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' $ < (8 ) / THE CIT(A)- MUMBAI CONCERNED 4. ' $ < / CIT MUMBAI CONCERNED 5. ? :@ , ' 8 ( 8@', , $ 7% / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI D BENCH 6. A B % / GUARD FILE. ! ( / BY ORDER, ; : //TRUE COPY// )/(* + ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ 7% / ITAT, MUMBAI