ACIT, New Delhi v. M/s. U-Like Promoters Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

MA 433/DEL/2010 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 43320124 RSA 2010
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number MA 433/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, New Delhi
Respondent M/s. U-Like Promoters Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 07-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 07-01-2011
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 16-09-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : FRIDAY(H) NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NOS. 431 432 433 434/DEL/09 (IN ITA NOS. 1364 1365 1366 1367/D/05) ASSTT. YEARS 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 SHRI RAJ KUMAR MANGLA 584/3 ROSHAN PURA GURGAON. VS. ACIT INVESTIGATION CIRCLE GURGAON. APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAJ KUMAR MANGLA ASSESSEE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAVI RAMA CHANDRAN DR ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV JM : THE PRESENT FOUR MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE DI RECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE POINTING OUT APPARENT ERRORS I N THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 6 TH MARCH 2009 IN MA NOS. 502 TO 505/D/2008 AS WELL A S IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23 RD MARCH 2007 PASSED IN ITA NOS. 1364 TO 1367/D/05 IN ASSTT. YEARS 1992-93 TO 1995-9 6. MA NOS. 431 432 433 434/DEL/09 ASSTT. YEARS1992-93 1993-94 1 994-95 1995- 96 2 2. THE ASSESSEE APPEARED IN PERSON. WITH THE ASSIST ANCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD CAREFULLY AND FIND THAT THESE ARE THE SECOND MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AT THE INS TANCE OF ASSESSEE IN ASSTT. YEARS 1992-93 TO 1995-96. HIS EARLIER MISCEL LANEOUS APPLICATIONS POINTING OUT APPARENT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL DATED 23 RD MARCH 2007 HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY A DETAILED ORDER RUNNIN G INTO 5 PAGES. THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY MOVED APPLICATIONS WHICH ARE RU NNING INTO 6 PAGES AND HE AGAIN MOVED THE APPLICATION RUNNING INTO 6 P AGES. 3. THE POWERS OF RECTIFICATION U/S 254 (2) CAN BE E XERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN O BVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENT AND A LONG D RAWN PROCESS OF REASONING FROM POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIV ABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GARB OF THE MISCELLAN EOUS APPLICATION WANTS TO GET REVIEW THE DETAILED ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL DATED 23 RD MARCH 2007 PASSED ON HIS APPEAL. WE HAVE CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING THAT THESE ARE THE MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATIONS POINTING OUT ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT PASSED ON MISCEL LANEOUS APPLICATION . THESE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT FORM. OU R VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED I N THE CASE OF MENTHA AND ALLIED PRODUCTS. PVT. LTD. VS ITAT REPORTED I N 244 MA NOS. 431 432 433 434/DEL/09 ASSTT. YEARS1992-93 1993-94 1 994-95 1995- 96 3 ITR 470 ATLAS SHOE COMPANY VS. CIT REPORTED IN 163 TAXMAN 214 (DELHI). THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINA BLE HENCE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 7.1.2011. SD/- [K.D. RANJAN] [RAJPAL YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7.1.2011 VEENA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT