The ITO, Ward-1, Ongole v. M/s Agricultural Market Committee,Markapur, Ongole

MA 164/VIZ/2010 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 16425324 RSA 2010
Bench Visakhapatnam
Appeal Number MA 164/VIZ/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-1, Ongole
Respondent M/s Agricultural Market Committee,Markapur, Ongole
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 20-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 20-10-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 16-09-2010
Judgment Text
PAGE 1 OF 4 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 APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 MP NO.155/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.550/VIZ/2009) 2003-04 ITO WARD-2 ONGOLE A.M.C. GIDDALUR 2 MP NO.156/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO.552/VIZ/2009) 2003-04 ITO WARD-2 ONGOLE A.M.C. PODILI 3 MP NO.157/VIZ/2010 (ITA NO 53/VIZ/2009) 2003-04 IT O WARD-2 ONGOLE A.M.C. KANDUKUR 4 MA NO.158/VIZ/2010 (ITA O.555/VIZ/2009) 2003-04 I TO WARD-2 ONGOLE A.M.C. KANIGIRI 5 MA NO.159/VIZ/2010 (ITA 558/VIZ/2009) 2003-04 ITO WARD-2 ONGOLE A.M.C. DARSI 6 MA NO.160/VIZ/2010(ITA NO.559/VIZ/2007) 2003-04 I TO WARD-2 ONGOLE A.M.C. CUMBUM 7 MA NO.161/VIZ/2010 (ITANO.560/VIZ/2009) 2003-04 I TO WARD-2 ONGOLE A.M.C. KONDEPI 8 MA NO.162/VIZ/2010 (ITA O.551/VIZ/2009) 2003-04 I TO WARD-1 ONGOLE A.M.C. MADDIPADU 9 MA NO.163/VIZ/2010 (ITA O.554/VIZ/2010) 2003-04 I TO WARD-1 ONGOLE A.M.C. ADDANKI 10 MA NO.164/VIZ/2010 (ITANO.556/VIZ/2009) 2003-04 ITO WARD-1 ONGOLE A.M.C. MARKAPUR 11 MA NO.165/VIZ/2010 (ITA O.557/VIZ/2009) 2003-04 ITO WARD-1 ONGOLE A.M.C. ONGOLE 12 MA NO.166/VIZ/2010 (ITA O.561/VIZ/2009) 2003-04 ITO WARD-1 ONGOLE A.M.C. MARTUR APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.L. PETER DR RESPONDENTS BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI 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 25-06-2010. PAGE 2 OF 4 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 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. PAGE 3 OF 4 4. ALL THESE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED U/S 2 54(2) OF THE ACT WITH A REQUEST TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED U/S 254(1) OF THE A CT 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 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. 5. ADMITTEDLY BOTH THE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEING PLACED BEFORE US NOW WERE NOT REFERRED TO BEFORE THE BENCH AT THE TIME OF HEARING . IN ANY CASE BOTH THE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 10(26AAB) OF THE ACT TO THE INCOME GENERATED BY THE SE ASSESSEES. HOWEVER THE ISSUE DECIDED BY THIS BENCH IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER R ELATES TO THE REGISTRATION UNDER SECTION 12AA OF THE ACT WHICH IS ALTOGETHER A DIFFERENT ISSUE. HENCE BOTH THE DECISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ISSUE DEALT BY THIS BENCH IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY THE PRESENT PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE TOTALLY AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASES DECIDED BY THIS BENCH IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 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 20 TH OCTOBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (B.R.BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PVV/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM DATE: 20-10-2010. PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO 1. THE ITO WARD-2 ONGOLE 2. THE ITO WARD-1 ONGOLE 3. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE GIDDALUR C/O N. BRAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS SANTHAPET 4. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE PODILI C/O N.BR AHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS SANTHAPET 5. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE KANDUKUR C/O N. BRAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS SANTHAPET 6. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE KANIGIRI C/O N. BRAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS SANTHAPET 7. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE DARSI C/O N.BRA HMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS SANTHAPET 8. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE CUMBUM C/O N.BR AHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS SANTHAPET 9. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE KONDEPI C/O N.BR AHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS SANTHAPET 10. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE ADDANKI C/O N.B RAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS SANTHAPET 11. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE ONGOLE C/O N.BR AHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS SANTHAPET 12. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE MARTUR C/O N.BR AHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS SANTHAPET 13. THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE PONNURU C/O N.B RAHMA REDDY & CO. IT PRACTITIONERS SANTHAPET 14. 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