The ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal v. Shri Sanjay Mehta, Bhopal

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.40/IND/2010 (ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NO. 89/IND/2006) B.P. 1.4.95 TO 27.2.2002 ACIT-3(1) BHOPAL APPLICANT VS. SANJAY MEHTA BHOPAL PAN ABFPM 9882 E RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI YESHWANT SHARMA CA O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT I S FILED BY THE REVENUE SEEKING RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 30.4.2010 ON SPECIFIC GROUND. 2. DURING HEARING OF THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION MR . PRADEEP KUMAR MITRA LD. SR. DR ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENT WHICH IS ID ENTICAL TO THE REQUEST MENTIONED IN THE PETITION. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI YESHWANT SHARMA LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPU GNED ORDER BY CONTENDING THAT FIRSTLY THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DELIBER ATED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL AND SECONDLY THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWERS TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF 2 BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DELIBERATED UPON THE ISSUE AS IS EVIDENT FROM PAGES 28 29 (PARA 57 & 58) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT SPECIFICALLY PINPOINTED ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THERE IS SPECIFIC FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THA T MOST OF THE ISSUES ARE COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE GROU P CASE OF RAJ HOMES P. LTD. (13 ITJ 658) THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL FACTS. THEREFORE THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PETITION OF THE REVENUE. EVEN OTHERWISE THE TRIBUNAL HAS LIMITED POWERS TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. THE POWERS OF VIEW MUST BE CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE . REVIEW OF AN ORDER MEANS REEXAMINATION OR TO GIVE A SECOND VIEW OF THE MATTER FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALTERATION OR REVERSAL OF THE VIEW ALRE ADY TAKEN AFTER CHANGING THE EARLIER OPINION OR VIEW. THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E TRIBUNAL U/S 254(1) IS THE EFFECTIVE ORDER SO FAR AS THE APPEAL IS CONCERN ED. ANY ORDER PASSED U/S 254(2) EITHER ALLOWING AMENDMENT OR REFUSING TO AME ND GETS MERGED WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED. THE ORDER AS AMENDED OR REMAINING UNAMENDED IS THE EFFECTIVE ORDER FOR ALL PRACTICABLE PURPOSES. T HAT IS THE FINAL ORDER OF THE APPEAL. RECALLING OF ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 2 54(2) AS RECALLING AUTOMATICALLY NECESSITATES REHEARING AND READJUDICA TION OF THE APPEAL. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN CIT VS. B.P. A GRAWAL (90 TAXMAN 283) (CAL) KARAN & CO. (253 ITR 131) (DEL) NIRANJAN & CO. LTD. VS. ITAT (122 ITR 519) (CAL) CIT VS. ITAT (196 ITR 640) (ORI) AND CI T VS. ITAT (155 TAXMAN 3 378) (DEL). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS NO CASE IS MADE OUT BY THE REVENUE THROUGH ITS MISCELLANEOU S PETITION THEREFORE SAME IS DISMISSED. FINALLY THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON 4.2.2011. (R.C. SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4.2.2011 {VYAS} COPY TO APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(A) DR GU ARD FILE