DCIT, Haldwani v. M/s. Lalkuan Store Crushers Ltd, Rudrapur

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH D DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI C. L. SETHI JM & SHRI K. D. RA NJAN AM MISC. APP. NO. 496 (DEL) OF 2009. [ IN I. T. APPEAL NO. 928 (DEL) OF 2007 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200203. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX LALKUAN STONE CRUSHERS LTD. H A L D W A N I. VS. RAMPUR ROAD RUDRAPUR [UDHAM SINGH NAGAR]. PAN / G I R NO. AAA CL 3025 L. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH ADV.; DEPARTMENT BY : MS. ANUSHKA KHURANA SR. D. R .; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN AM : THIS MISC. APPLICATION BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN FILE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22 ND MAY 2009 PASSED BY THE ITAT IN ITA. NO. 928 (DEL) OF 2007 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. IN THE GROUND FOR MISC. PETITION IS REPRODUCED A S UNDER :- 1. WHILE DECIDING APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) THE HONBLE ITAT HAS FAIL ED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE WHETHER PROCESSING UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE I. T. ACT IS AN ORDER UNDER 2 MISC. APP. NO. 496 (DEL) OF 2009. THE I. T. ACT LIABLE FOR RECTIFICATION OR NOT IN V IEW OF HONBLE SUPREME COURTS JUDGEMENT RELIED UPON IN THE CASE OF M/S. GOETZ IND IA LTD. VS. CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ACT FOR ALLOWING AN ADJUSTME NT IN THE RETURN INCOME ACCEPTED UNDER SECTION 143(1) WITHOUT A REVISED RET URN. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE MISC. APPLIC ATION THE LD. SR. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1 ) OF THE ACT TO BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO GROUND OF APPEAL WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL AGAIN ST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. MOREOVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY THE REVENUE WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE NO MIS TAKE HAS BEEN CREPT IN IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22 ND MAY 2009. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY GROUND AS RAISED BY THE REVENUE NOR WAS ANY ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THEREFORE NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD HAS CREPT IN TO BE REC TIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. SR. DR ALSO COULD NOT POINT OUT MISTAKE IN THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DI SMISSED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 31 ST JANUARY 2011 . SD/- SD/- [ C. L. SETHI ] [ K. D . RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31 ST JANUARY 2011 . *MEHTA * 3 MISC. APP. NO. 496 (DEL) OF 2009. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPLICANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT (APPEALS) 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT.