ACIT, Ludhiana v. M/s Avery Cycle Industries, Ludhiana

MA 151/CHANDI/2005 | 1995-1996
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 15121524 RSA 2005
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number MA 151/CHANDI/2005
Duration Of Justice 7 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Ludhiana
Respondent M/s Avery Cycle Industries, Ludhiana
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2012
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2012
Assessment Year 1995-1996
Appeal Filed On 08-04-2005
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA VP AND SHRI T.R. SOOD AM MISC. APPLICATION NO. 151/CHD/2005 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1040/CHD/1998 616/CHD/1999 & 1179/CHD/1998 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1995-96 & 1996-97 A.C.I.T. CIRCLE CIRCLE-III V. M/S AVERY CYCLE IND USTRIES LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN: (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI N.K. SAINI RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING: 13.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.07.2012 ORDER PER T.R. SOOD A.M NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOT ICE AND SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT WE DECIDED TO HEAR THE MISC. APPLICATION EXPARTE. 2 THROUGH THIS MISC. APPLICATION THE REVENUE HAS SOUG HT RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE. THE APPLICATION OF REVENUE IS ROUNDED INT O 15 PAGES WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT ERROR IS NOT APPARENT FROM RECORD AND TH E SAME HAS TO BE FOUND OUT BY AN ELABORATE PROCESS OF REASONING. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ITO V. VOLKART BROTHERS AND OTHERS 82 ITR 50 (SC) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOU S AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY B E CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW I S NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 3. THUS IN THE PRESENT ORDER NO CLEAR CUT ERROR HAS BEEN POINTED OUT AND ONCE SUCH VOLUMINOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN MADE WHIC H SHOWS THAT SOME DEBATABLE POINTS WERE INVOLVED WHICH CAN NOT BE CAL LED APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2 1179/CHD/1998 A.Y 1995-96 DATED 3.3.2005 AND ACCOR DINGLY WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6. IN THE RESULT MISC. APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31.07.2012 SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (T.R. SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEM BER DATED: 31.07.2012 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/ THE DR 3