The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Guntur v. M/s Agricultural Market Committee, Bapatla

MA 116/VIZ/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 11625324 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAALA0414G
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number MA 116/VIZ/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Guntur
Respondent M/s Agricultural Market Committee, Bapatla
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 24-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 24-09-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 20-08-2010
Judgment Text
PAGE 1 OF 5 MA NOS.103 TO 132 AMCS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH VISAKHAPATNAM B EFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S NO. CASE NO. ASSTT YEAR PAN APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 MP NO.103/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.90/VIZ/2007) 2003-04 AAALA 0414 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . GUNTUR 2 MP NO.104/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.369/VIZ/2007) 2004-05 AAALA 0414 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . GUNTUR 3 MP NO.106/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.83/VIZ/2007) 2003-04 AAALA 0422 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . DUGGIRALA 4 MA NO.107/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.359/VIZ/2007) 2004-05 AAALA 0422 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . DUGGIRALA 5 MA NO.109/VIZ/2010 (ITA 84/VIZ/2007) 2003-04 AAAFA 7492 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . TENALI 6 MA NO.110/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.367/VIZ/2007) 2004-05 AAAFA 7492 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . TENALI 7 MA NO.112/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.357/VIZ/2007) 2004-05 AAALA 0446 Q D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . REPALLE 8 MA NO.114/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.87/VIZ/2007) 2003-04 AAALA 0410 C D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . BAPTALA 9 MA NO.115/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.356/VIZ/2007) 2004-05 AAALA 0410 C D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . BAPTALA 10 MA NO.117/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.88/VIZ/2007) 2003-04 AAALA 0789 N D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . PARUCHURU 11 MA NO.119/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.89/VIZ/2007) 2003-04 AAALA 0301 L D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C. SATTEHPALLI 12 MA NO.120/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.111/VIZ/2007) 2004-05 AAALA 0301 L D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C. SATTEHPALLI 13 MA NO.122/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.91/VIZ/2007) 2003-04 AAALA 0307 N D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . PIDUGURALLA 14 MA NO.123/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.358/VIZ/2007) 2004-05 AAALA 0307 N D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . PIDUGURALLA 15 MA NO.125/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.93/VIZ/2007) 2003-04 AAKHA 4155 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . KROSURU 16 MA NO.126/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.368/VIZ/2007) 2004-05 AAKHA 4155 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . KROSURU 17 MA NO.128/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.305/VIZ/2007) 2003-04 AAALA 0393 A D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . CHIRALA 18 MA NO.131/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.86/VIZ/2007) 2003-04 AAALA 0411 D D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . PONNURU 19 MA NO.132/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.352/VIZ/2007) 2004-05 AAALA 0411 D D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . PONNURU 20 MA NO.113/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.531/VIZ/2008) 2005-06 AAALA 0446 Q D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . REPALLE 21 MA NO.111/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.533/VIZ/2008) 2005-06 AAAFA 7492 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . TENALI 22 MA NO.108/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.526/VIZ/2008) 2005-06 AAALA 0422 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . DUGGIRALA 23 MA NO.105/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.529/VIZ/2008) 2005-06 AAALA 0414 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . GUNTUR PAGE 2 OF 5 24 MA NO.116/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.514/VIZ/2008) 2005-06 AAALA 0410 C D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . BAPTALA 25 MA NO.118/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.532/VIZ/2008) 2005-06 AAALA 0789 N D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . PARUCHURU 26 MA NO.121/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.530/VIZ/2008) 2005-06 AAALA 0301 L D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C. SATTEHPALLI 27 MA NO.124/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.527/VIZ/2008) 2005-06 AAALA 0307 N D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . PIDUGURALLA 28 MA NO.127/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.528/VIZ/2008) 2005-06 AAKHA 4155 G D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . KROSURU 29 MA NO.129/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.510/VIZ/2008) 2004-05 AAALA 0393 A D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . CHIRALA 30 MA NO.130/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.534/VIZ/2008) 2005-06 AAALA 0393 A D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-1 GUNTUR A.M.C . CHIRALA APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUBRATA SARKAR CIT-DR RESPONDENTS BY: SHRI Y. SURYACHANDRA RAO CA ORDER PER BENCH: - ALL THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILE D AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE WITH THE PRAYER THAT THESE PETITIONS BE ADM ITTED AND THE ORIGINAL ORDERS BE AMENDED BY PASSING NECESSARY ORDERS BY TAKING IN TO ACCOUNT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE VS. CIT (305 ITR 1) (S.C) AND ALSO THE DE CISION RENDERED BY HYDERABAD BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF A.C.I.T. CIU RCLE-1 KHAMMAM VS. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE MADHIRA (ITA NO.542 & 543/H/09). 2. ALL THESE APPLICATIONS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDERS PASSED BY THIS BENCH ON THREE DIFFERENT DATES. THE APPLICATIONS LISTED IN S .NO. 1 TO 19 (SUPRA) ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 28-11-2008. THE MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATION LISTED IN S.NO.20 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17-3 -2009. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS LISTED IN S.NO. 21 TO 30 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27-1-2009. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND ALSO PERUSED THE PETITIONS CAREFULLY. ADMITTEDLY THESE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS HAVE BEEN FILED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE SAID SECTION READS AS UNDER: 254(2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ANY TIME WIT HIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYI NG ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER PAGE 3 OF 5 SUB-SECTION (1) AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 3.1 THE POWER VESTED WITH THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254( 2) OF THE ACT CAME TO THE CONSIDERATION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. EARNEST EXPORTS LTD. (323 ITR 577) AND THE OBSERVATIONS MAD E BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THIS REGARD IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 8. SECTION 254(2) EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND FOR THAT PURPOSE TO AM END ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN I TS JUDGMENT IN HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. V. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466 THAT THE UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF SECTION 254(2) IS BASED O N THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE THAT A PARTY APPEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT SUFFER ON ACCOUNT OF A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WHEN PREJUDICE RESULTS FROM AN ORDER ATTR IBUTABLE TO THE TRIBUNALS MISTAKE ERROR OR OMISSION IT IS THE DU TY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO SET IT RIGHT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE C ONCEPT OF THE INHERENT POWER TO REVIEW. THE SUPREME COURT HELD TH AT THE TRIBUNAL WOULD BE REGARDED AS HAVING COMMITTED A MI STAKE IN NOT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL WHICH IS ALREADY ON RECORD . IN THAT CASE A DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS CITED BEFORE I T HAD BY OVERSIGHT BEEN OVERLOOKED IN THE JUDGMENT DISMISSIN G THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE QUESTION OF THE ADMISS IBILITY OF A CLAIM FOR ENHANCED DEPRECIATION UNDER SECTION 43A. THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD TO BE ENTITLED TO CORRECT ITS ERROR SO AS TO DEAL WITH THE DECISION WHICH WAS CITED. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY AMEND THE ORDER PASSED BY IT U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT IN ORDER TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE A PPARENT FROM THE RECORD. AS PER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) OMISSION TO CONSIDER ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD IS ALSO A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 4. ALL THESE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED U/S 2 54(2) OF THE ACT WITH A REQUEST TO AMEND THE RESPECTIVE ORIGINAL ORDERS PASSED U/S 254 (1) OF THE ACT BY CONSIDERING FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (A) AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE VS. CIT (305 ITR 1) (S.C) (B) A.C.I.T. VS. AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE M ADHIRA (ITA NO.542 & 543 (HYD ITAT) DATED 26-3-201 0. APART FROM THE ABOVE THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED O UT ANY OTHER MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L. NOW LET US CONSIDER THE PAGE 4 OF 5 PLEA OF THE REVENUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) I.E. WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL HAS OMITTED TO CONSIDER THE CASE LAW THAT WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE COMMON OR DER DATED 28-11-2008 REFERRED TO IN PARA NO.2 (SUPRA) IS THE INITIAL ORD ER PASSED WITH DETAILED REASONING AND THE OTHER TWO ORDERS ARE ONLY FOLLOW UP OF THE INITIAL ORDER. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE SAID INITIAL ORDER DATED 28.11.2008 WE NOTI CE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE (SUPRA) AND THE SAME IS DI SCERNIBLE FROM PARA NO.10.4 13 & 15. THUS IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT TH E TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED A MISTAKE BY NOT CONSIDERING THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR TS ORDER REFERRED ABOVE. 4.1 IT CAN ALSO BE NOTICED THAT THE DECISION OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF ITAT HAS BEEN RENDERED ON 26-3-2010 I.E. SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST WHICH THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED. HENCE THE SAID DECISION OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH COUL D NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TI ME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FIL ED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF HYDERABAD BENCH OF ITAT REFERRED (SUPRA) AT THE TI ME OF HEARING. SINCE WE ARE DEALING WITH THE PETITIONS FILED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT IN WHICH THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IS RESTRICTED WE CANNOT CONSIDER ANY FRES H MATERIAL AT THIS STAGE. HENCE THE PLEA MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ALL THE MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATIONS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 5. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE HYDERABA D BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS MADE A REFERENCE TO THE HON'BLE PRESIDENT TO CO NSTITUTE A SPECIAL BENCH ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IN AS MUCH AS THE CONTRARY VIEWS WERE EXPRESSED BY DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL . BUT THE REQUEST OF THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS TURNED DOWN BY THE THEN HON'BLE PRESIDENT WITH THE FOLLOWING REMARKS DATED 28.10.2009: A REGULAR BENCH CAN DECIDE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF SECTION 10(26AAB) AND SUPREME COURT DECISION AND OTHER FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN MY VIEW IT IS NOT NE CESSARY TO CONSTITUTE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE FACT S. PAGE 5 OF 5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE PRE SIDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO TA KE ITS INDEPENDENT VIEW. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY TAKEN A VIEW IN T HIS REGARD AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY VALID REASON TO DEPART FROM OUR OWN VIEWS. WE THEREFORE FOLLOWING OUR VIEW TAKEN IN EARLIER APPEALS HAVE DECIDED THESE APPEALS . 6. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ONS OF THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-09-2010 SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE: 24-09-2010 COPY TO 1. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-1(1) GUNT UR 2. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE GUNTUR 3. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE DUGGIRALA 4. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE TENALI 5. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE REPALLE 6. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE BAPATLA 7. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE PARUCHURU 8. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE SATTHENPALLI 9. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE PIDUGURALLA 10. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE KROSURU 11. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE CHIRALA 12. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE PONNURU 13. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GUNTUR 14. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUNTUR 15. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE I.T.A.T. VISA KHAPATNAM 16. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM