M/s Roxy Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana v. ITO, Ludhiana

MA 308/CHANDI/2006 | 1994-1995
Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 30821524 RSA 2006
Assessee PAN AABCR4409G
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number MA 308/CHANDI/2006
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant M/s Roxy Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana
Respondent ITO, Ludhiana
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 14-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 14-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 08-10-2010
Next Hearing Date 08-10-2010
Assessment Year 1994-1995
Appeal Filed On 04-09-2006
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 308/CHD/2006 ARISING OUT OF MA NO.16/CHANDI/2006 ( IN ITA NO. 346/CHD/2004 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1994-95 M/S ROXY ENGINEERING P.LTD. VS. THE ITO LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AABCR4409G M.A. NO. 309/CHD/2006 ARISING OUT OF MA NO.17/CHANDI/2006 (IN ITA NO. 615/CHD/2004) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1995-96 M/S ROXY ENGINEERING P.LTD. VS. THE ITO LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AABCR4409G & M.A. NO. 310/CHD/2006 ARISING OUT OF MA NO.18/CHANDI/2006 (IN ITA NO. 616/CHD/2004) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1996-97 M/S ROXY ENGINEERING P.LTD. VS. THE ITO LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AABCR4409G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.K.GOYAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI N.K.SAINI ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIONS MOVED BY THE APPLICA NT ARISE OUT OF THE MISC. PETITION NOS. 16 TO 18/CHANDI/2006 ORDER DATED 30.6.2006 2 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 1996-97. TH E APPLICANT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN M.A. NO. 16 TO 18/CHANDI/2006. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICA NT IN ALL THE YEARS IS AS UNDER:- WHILE HOLDING THE MISC. APPLICATION TO BE MISCONCE IVED AND HENCE LIABLE TO THE DISMISSED. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL NEITHER REFERRED TO THE LOG BOOK NOR TO THE PLETHORA OF REC ORDS / JUDGMENTS PLACED FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ITAT IN O RIGINAL APPEAL DESPITE THE SAME HAVING BEEN PLEADED TO BE C ONSIDERED AND REFERRED TO DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT LEADI NG AGAIN TO MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. NO BASIS HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR REVERSAL OF THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BO OK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN EXERCISE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN HIM U/S 145(3). THAT FURTHER WHILE DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE CASE LAW CITED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION THOUGH CURSORILY REFERRED TO LEADING AGAIN TO THE MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. 3. THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTI ON TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREIN AT PAGE 8 THE CIT(A) HAD GIVEN A FI NDING THAT NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD BEEN DETEC TED AND NO BASIS FOR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING TOTALLY UNRELIABLE HAD B EEN GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 346 615 & 616/CHANDI/2004 RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 TO 1996-97 AS PER ITS OBSERVATION AT PAGE 1 1 REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE GRI EVANCE OF THE LEARNED AR FOR THE APPLICANT WAS THAT ONCE THE CIT(A) HAD GIVE N A FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISCREPANCY THE GROSS PROFITS RATES SHOWN BY THE A SSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. 3 4. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT AN APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BY THE DEPARTMENT AND IN THE SAID APPEAL THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS CHALLENGED. CO NSEQUENTLY THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT NO SPECIFIC DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS HAD BEEN DETECTED AND THERE WAS NO BASIS IN THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS ALSO UNDER CHALLENGE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND THE MISC APPLICATION MOVED B Y THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN DISMISSED. THE LEARNED DR FURTHER STATE D THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE ACT TO FILE A MISC. APPLICATION AGAINST THE PREVIOUS MISC. APPLICATION DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE RECORDS. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT THE TRIBUNAL WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD M AY AMEND AN ORDER PASSED BY IT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTIC E BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE POWER IS ENSHRINED UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT UPON THE TRIBUNAL TO REC TIFY ANY MISTAKES IN THE ORDER PASSED BY IT WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE SAID POWER IS TO BE EXERCISED IN RESPECT OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS 346 615 & 616/CHANDI/2004 RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 1996-97 WERE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 22.9. 2005 AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WERE PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE H AD MOVED MISC. APPLICATION IN M.A. NOS. 16 TO 18/CHANDI/2006 WHICH WERE ALSO DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30.6.200 6. IN THE SAID MISC. APPLICATION THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANT WAS THA T THERE WAS NO GROUND RELATING TO APPLICATION OF PROVISO TO SECTION 145(2 ) / 145(3) (AMENDED) OF 4 THE ACT. AS PER THE APPELLANT THE TRIBUNAL HAD EX CEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE REJECT ION OF BOOK RESULTS AND APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(2) / 145(3 ) OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING THE MISC. APPLICATION HEL D THAT IN ORDER TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DELETED BY THE CIT(A) WERE JUSTIFIED IT WAS NECESSARY TO C ONSIDER WHETHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE HAD RIGHTLY BEEN R EJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIF IED IN HOLDING THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS IN THIS CASE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WERE DISMISSED. 7. THE APPLICANT BY WAY OF PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIO N HAS SOUGHT THE INDULGENCE OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RECALLING THE ORDER P ASSED IN THE AFORESAID MISC. APPLICATION BECAUSE OF A APPARENT PATENT AN D OBVIOUS MISTAKE ARISING IN THE SAID ORDER WHILE DISPOSING OF THE AP PLICATION. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE POWERS U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT BEING LIMITED TO THE EXERCISE OF SUCH POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN REG ULAR APPEALS AND NOT AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED DISPOSING OF THE MISC. AP PLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPLICA NT AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE LIMITED AND THE SAID POWERS CANNOT BE INVOKED TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPLICANT. ONLY SUCH MISTAKES WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORD ARE OPEN FOR EXERCISE OF THE POWERS U/S 254( 2) OF THE ACT. THE SAID POWERS CANNOT BE EXERCISED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO UNSET TLE THE DECISION TAKEN 5 AFTER DUE DELIBERATION. THE APPLICANT IN THE PRES ENT CASE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF MISC. APPLICATION AND TH E SAME IS DISMISSED IN THE VIEW OF OUR OBSERVATIONS HERE-IN-ABOVE. 8. IN THE RESULT MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14 TH OCTOBER 2010 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 6