YOGESH M MODI, MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

MA 94/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6964 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M V RAJGURU
• Assessee Lawyers: HITESH M SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH E, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 94/M/2018 IN ITA NO.6921/M/2016 (ASSESSMEN T YEAR-2012-13) YOGESH MODI, 208, 2 ND FLOOR, PLOT NO.26, SHALIMAR MIRACLE, S.V. ROAD JAWAHAR NAGAR, GOREGAON (WEST) MUMBAI-400062. PAN: AACPM8521M VS. ITO 25(1)(5) , C-10, 4 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHYAKAR BHAWAN , BKC, BANDRA(EAST), MUMBAI-400051 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. HITESH M SHAH -AR REVENUE BY : SH. M.V. RAJGURU - DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.07.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) IS DIRECTED BY ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATIONS OF ALLEGED MISTAKE IN ORDER DATED 14 .11.2017 IN ITA NO. 6921/MUM/2016 FOR AY 2012-13. THE APPLICANT/ASSESSE E IN THE APPLICATION HAS CONTENDED THAT THE FULL DISALLOWANC E OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 4,11,677/- WAS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF FACT. IN THE APPLICATION THE APPLICANT/ ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR RECA LL OF THE ORDER DATED 14.11.2017. 2. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT WHILE PASSI NG THE ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRAN T THE RELIEF OF MA NO.94/M/2018 YOGESH MODI 2 DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,80,950/- IF ASSESSEE FURNISHE D ANY EVIDENCE THAT ASSET ADDED DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD WAS PUT TO U SE BEFORE 31.3.2012. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPREC IATION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS OF RS. 4,11,677/-. THEREFORE, THERE IS M ISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD, THE LD AR PRAYED THAT EITHER THE ORDER MAY BE RECALL OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW RELIEF T O THE ASSESSEE FOR ENTIRE CLAIM OF DEPRICIATION OF RS.4,11,677/- 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBM ITS THAT THERE IS NO ERROR APPARENT IN THE ORDER. THE PRAYER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE ORDER PASSED ON 14.11 .2017 WAS PASSED AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AN D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FAI LED TO BRING OUT ANY MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL H AS NO POWER TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND TO REVIEW ITS ORDER IN THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2). HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS RAMESH TRADING COMPANY (203 ITR 597) MADE SIMILAR OBSERVAT ION. THEREFORE, THE PRAYER MADE IN THE APPLICATION HAS NO SUBSTANCE UNDER LAW AND DESERVE DISMISSAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, M.A. FILED BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. MA NO.94/M/2018 YOGESH MODI 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DAY OF JULY 2018. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 13 /07/2018 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/