ASST. CIT RG 14(2), v. TEXPORT SYNDICATE,

MA 506/MUM/2010 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 50619924 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAAFT1077A
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number MA 506/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant ASST. CIT RG 14(2),
Respondent TEXPORT SYNDICATE,
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 20-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted J
Tribunal Order Date 20-10-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 12-08-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH J : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL (JM) AND SHRI RAMAKOTAI AH (AM) M.A. NO.506/MUM/2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3953/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-14 (2) MUMBAI-20. ..( APPLICANT ) VS. M/S. TEXPORT SYNDICATE 307/309 KALBADEVI ROAD MUMBAI-400 002. ..( RESPONDENT ) P.A. NO. (AAAFT 1077 A) APPLICANT BY : SHRI D. SONGATE RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER D.K. AGARWAL (JM). THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2010 PASSED BY THE TRIBU NAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENT S APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE TAX EFFECT ON THE DISPUTED AMOUN T OF RS.4 09 848/- IS LESS THAN RS.2.00 LACS. HOWEVER THE DISPU TED AMOUNT IS RS.9 70 381/- THEREFORE THE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS APPARENTLY NOT CORRECT. IN SUPPORT THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED THE AMENDED GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER :- MA NO.506/M/10 A.Y:01-02 2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW NETTING OF INTEREST OF THE AMOUNTS OF RS .9 70 381/- BEING INTEREST ON STAFF LOAN INTEREST ON SALES-TAX AND I .T. REFUND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE NEXUS OF INTEREST OF THE REMAINI NG AMOUNTS. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE NOR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE . HENCE IT WAS DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER EXPARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 4. THE LD. DR SUBMITS THAT FOR THE REASONS AS MENTIONED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BE RECALLED. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD . DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND TH AT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IN THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE THE REVENUE HAS DISPUTED THE AMOUNT OF RS.4 09 848/- ONLY VIDE GROUND NO.2 WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW NETTING OFF OF INTEREST OF THE AMOUNTS OF RS.4 09 8 48/- BEING INTEREST ON STAFF LOAN AND INTEREST ON SALES TAX AND I.T. REFUND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THE NEXUS OF INTEREST OF THE REMAINI NG AMOUNTS. MA NO.506/M/10 A.Y:01-02 3 6. THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF DISPUT E OF RS.4 09 848/- AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT IN FACT THE DISPUTED AMO UNT IS RS.9 70 381/- AND NOT RS.4 09 848/- AS TAKEN IN THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL APPLIED THE RECENT INSTRUCTIONS NO.5/2008 DATE D 15.5.2008 ISSUED BY THE CBDT DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL. NO W THE REVENUE BY FILING THE AMENDED GROUND SHOWING THAT TH E AMOUNT OF DISPUTE OF RS.9 70 381/- CONTENDS THAT THE TAX EFFECT ON THE SAME IS MORE THAN RS.2.00 LACS THEREFORE THERE IS A MISTAKE I N THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE . SINCE THE AMENDED GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN TAK EN EVEN AT THE TIME OF HEARING WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE GRO UNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AT THIS STAGE IN NOT ONLY AGAINST THE PROVISIO NS OF THE LAW BUT ALSO AGAINST THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE. THE REVENUE WANTS R EVIEW WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE SCHEME OF SECTION 254(2) OF TH E ACT. THIS BEING SO THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REV ENUE IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS REJECTED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION STANDS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.10.2010. SD/- SD/- (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) ( D.K. AGARWAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 20.10.2010. JV. MA NO.506/M/10 A.Y:01-02 4 COPY TO: THE APPLICANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT CONCERNED MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED MUMBAI THE DR J BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.