The ACIT, Central Circle-4,, Surat v. Taha Wires Pvt. Ltd.,, Surat

MA 348/AHD/2009 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 34820524 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACT8700H
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number MA 348/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Central Circle-4,, Surat
Respondent Taha Wires Pvt. Ltd.,, Surat
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 23-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 23-04-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 15-10-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES A AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/ SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.C.AGARWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NO.348/AHD/2009 (ARISING OUT ITA NO.3670/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 DATE OF HEARING: 23.4.10 DRAFTED:26.4.10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 SURAT VS. TAHA WIRES PVT. LTD. 10 HAJOORI CHAMBERS SALABATPURA SURAT PAN NO.AAACT8700H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) M.A.NO.416/AHD/2009 (ARISING OUT ITA NO.3671/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 SURAT VS. TAHA WIRES PVT. LTD. 10 HAJOORI CHAMBERS SALABATPURA SURAT PAN NO.AAACT8700H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT) (ORIGINAL APPELLANT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N.DIVETIA AR REVENUE BY : SHRI C.K.MISHRA SR-DR ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH J.M. 2 BY WAY OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION (MA) REV ENUE HAS REQUESTED FOR RE-CALLING/AMENDING BY RECTIFYING THE ORDER IN ITA NO.3670-3671/AHD/2007 DATED 17-04-2009. 2. AT THE OUTSET LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI S.N. DIVETIA STATED THAT THE MAS ARE ARISING OUT OF THE TRIBUNAL S ORDER IN ASSESSEES MA VIDE MA NO.114 AND 124/AHD/2008 (ARIS ING OUT OF ITA NO.3670 AND 3671/AHD/2007 DATED 17-04-2009 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2004-05) AND ARGUED THAT ON THE SAME IS SUE THERE CANNOT BE MA AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL PASSED U /S.254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT). ACCORDINGLY HE REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE ORISSA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANOTHER V. INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AN D OTHERS (1992) 196 ITR 838 (ORISSA) WHEREIN IT IS HELD AS UNDER:- SECTION 254(2) EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) WITH A VIEW TO R ECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THEREFORE TO ATTRACT T HE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 254(2) THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO B E RECTIFIED MUST BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND THE SAME MUST BE IN ANY ORDER PASSED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 254. THE ORDER REFERRED TO IN SECTION 254(1) IS THE ONE RELATING T O AN APPEAL FILED ORDER REFERRED TO IN SECTION 254(1) IS THE ON E RELATING TO AN APPEAL FILED BY EITHER THE ASSESSEE OR THE REVENUE. SECTION 254(1) READS AS FOLLOWS:- THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAD PASS SU CH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT. THE APPEAL REFERRED TO IN THE PROVISION IS ONE FI LED UNDER SECTION 253. THEREFORE THE ORDER WHICH CAN BE RECT IFIED MUST BE ONE WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AN APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 253. IN OUR VIEW AN ORDER REJE CTING AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS NOT AVAILABLE TO BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2). THE SAME MAY RELATE TO AN APPEAL BUT IT IS NOT AN ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUN AL UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 254. AS INDICATED ABOVE THE ASSESSEES 3 APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SECOND APPLICATION WAS FOR RECTIF ICATION OF SOME ALLEGED MISTAKES IN THE SAID ORDER OF REJECTIO N. SECTION 254(2) HAD NO APPLICATION TO SUCH AN ORDER. THE TRI BUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PURPORTING TO ACT UNDER SECTION 25 4(2) AND PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT THINK IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE SUBMISSIONS RELATING TO THE DISPUTE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY RECTIFIABLE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD OR NOT. 3. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE OR ISSA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANOTHER (SUPRA) MA AGAINST THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL PASSED U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT IS NOT MAINTA INABLE. ACCORDINGLY THESE MAS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . 4. IN THE RESULT BOTH REVENUES MAS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 /04/2010. SD/- SD/- ( D.C.AGARWAL ) ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: AHMEDABAD. DATE : 23/04/2010 DKP* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-I SURAT 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DR / AR ITAT AHMEDABAD