M/s. Meghmani Organics Ltd.,, Ahmedabad v. The ACIT., Circle-4,, Ahmedabad

MA 205/AHD/2012 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 20520524 RSA 2012
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number MA 205/AHD/2012
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Meghmani Organics Ltd.,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The ACIT., Circle-4,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 05-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 05-07-2013
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 29-10-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.205/AHD/2012 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1347/AHD/2004) A.Y: 2001-02 M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. 183/184 PHASE-II GIDC VATVA AHMEDABAD VS ACIT CIRCLE-4 AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR / // / DATE OF HEARING : 05/07/2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/07/2013 / O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS M.A. IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE M.A. TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER TH E TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND N O.4 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL B ENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. ROGINI GARMENTS & OTHERS (2007) 108 ITD 49 (CHENNAI) (SB) . IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MA THAT AS PER SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE B OMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 332 ITR 42 SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED IN THE M.A. T HAT AS PER THE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. MILLIPORE INDIA PVT. LTD. 341 ITR 219 SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED MA N O.205/AHD/2012 (IN ITA NO.1347/AHD/2004) M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. VS. ACIT AHMEDABAD A.Y. 2001-02 - 2 - IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUD GMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) . 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US IT IS SUBMIT TED BY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DECISION OF THE SPECIA L BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND ALSO BY HONBLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT AND THEREAFTER THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THEREFORE THIS DECISION OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT IN LINE WITH THESE TWO JUDGMENTS OF HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AND THEREFOR E IT IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE RECT IFIED. 3. AS AGAINST THIS IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE THAT NONE OF THESE JUDGMENTS IS OF HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT OR OF HONBLE APEX COURT AND HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL DECISION IS CONTAINING ANY APPARENT MISTAK E ONLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN LINE WITH TWO SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF HONBLE BO MBAY HIGH COURT AND HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. REPORTED IN (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC) IT WAS HELD THAT IF A TRIBUNALS DECISION IS NOT IN LINE WITH A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR OF HONBLE APEX COURT EVEN IF RENDERED SUBSEQUENTLY THEN THERE IS APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH MA N O.205/AHD/2012 (IN ITA NO.1347/AHD/2004) M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. VS. ACIT AHMEDABAD A.Y. 2001-02 - 3 - SHOULD BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2). NOT A SIN GLE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS BEEN CITED BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER IS NOT IN LINE WITH THE SAM E. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE TWO JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE LEARNED A.R OF THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US AND ALSO BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE M .A. ARE OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. BUT THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND HENCE THESE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE APEX CO URT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD (SUPRA) AND OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUHRID GIEGN 237 ITR 834 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. BEFORE US LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON A DECISION OF THE ITAT AHMEDA BAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M.A. NO.147/AHD/2 012 DATED 5.10.2012. IN THAT CASE THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS PAS SED IN ITA NO. 579/AHD/2010 DATED 23.3.2012. IN THAT CASE THE JU DGMENTS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ASSOCIATED CAPSULES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN TH E CASE OF MILLIPORE INDIA PVT. LTD (SUPRA) WERE VERY MUCH CITED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL ITSEL F AND IN SPITE OF THIS THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWED THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION WITHOU T FOLLOWING THESE TWO JUDGMENTS OF TWO DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS AND UNDER TH ESE FACTS IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS M.A. ORDER THAT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE THE RE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE AND THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WAS RECALLED FOR FRE SH HEARING. IN THE PRESENT CASE THESE TWO JUDGMENTS WERE NOT EVEN AVA ILABLE WHEN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL WAS HEARD AND THEREFORE THIS TRIBU NAL ORDER IN M.A. PROCEEDINGS IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. MA N O.205/AHD/2012 (IN ITA NO.1347/AHD/2004) M/S. MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. VS. ACIT AHMEDABAD A.Y. 2001-02 - 4 - 4.1 IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CONTENTION THAT EVEN IF THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IS NOT IN LINE WITH ANY SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF A HI GH COURT OTHER THAN THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT THEN ALSO IT HAS TO BE A CCEPTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IS CONTAINING AN APPARENT MISTAKE NO AUTH ORITY IS CITED BEFORE US. HENCE THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A CCEPTABLE BECAUSE ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF A HIGH COUR T WHICH IS NOT JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT T RIBUNAL ORDER IS CONTAINING AN APPARENT MISTAKE. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY . 5. IN THE RESULT MA OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/07/2013 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI SR. P.S. TRUE COPY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. #$#% ' '& / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' '&() / THE CIT(A)-III AHMEDABAD 5. )*' % ' ' % -$ / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. *./ 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER 1 11 1/ // / ' #2 ' #2 ' #2 ' #2 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % -$ -$ -$ -$ / ITAT AHMEDABAD