M/s Patel Timber Mart,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

MA 55/RJT/2010 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 5524924 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACFP4411A
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number MA 55/RJT/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant M/s Patel Timber Mart,, RAJKOT-GUJARAT
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3),, RAJKOT-GUJARAT
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 04-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 04-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 16-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 16-09-2011
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 06-10-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH RAJKOT BEFORE SHRI T.K. SHARMA (JM) AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT ( AM) M.A. NO.55/RJT/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.1151/RJT/2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) M/S PATEL TIMBER MART VS ITO WD.1(3) WD.1(3) RAJKOT 7 LATI PLOT RAJKOT PAN : AACFP4411A (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) DATE OF HEARING : 04-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-11-2011 APPLICANT BY : SHRI RD LALCHANDANI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AVINASH KUMAR O R D E R PER AL GEHLOT (AM) THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE SEEKS RECALL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 13-09-2010 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IN ITA NO.1151/RJT/2010. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE ITAT THE LD.AR POINTED OUT THAT VARIOUS FACTS AND CASE LAWS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT. THE ASSESSEE S INCOME WAS A LOSS AND THE FIRST ADDITION WAS ONLY DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE I N THE VALUE OF THE STOCK. THE QUANTUM APPEAL WAS NOT HEARD BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT FINALLY ASSESSED INCOME WAS A LOSS. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD.AR PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: MA NO.33/RJT/2011 2 RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (PVT) LTD 322 ITR 158 (SC) DILIP N SHROFF VS JCIT 291 ITR 519 (SC) CIT VS SUCHITRA SEN 135 ITR 797 BHAGIRATH PRASAD BILGAIYA VS CIT 139 ITR 902 (MP) JUMABHAI PREMCHAND (HUF) VS CIT 243 ITR 812 (GUJ) CIT VS RAVAIL SINGH & CO 254 ITR 191 (P&H) HARIGOPAL SINGH VS CIT 258 IT 85 (P&H) IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ON THAT THE ITAT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IS C ORRECT. HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF MERCURY METALS (P) LTD VS ACIT 257 ITR 297 (GUJ) AND RAMESHCHANDRA M LUTHR A 257 ITR 460(GUJ). THE FACTS IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARE SUPP ORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE COUNSEL SHRI RANJIT D LALCHANDANI. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PART IES RECORD PERUSED. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR RECTIFICATIO N OF ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB SECT ION (2) OF SECTION 254(2) WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED THEREIN. IT IS AN ACCEP TED POSITION THAT THE ITAT DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ONLY POWER WHICH THE TRIBUNAL POSSESSES IS TO R ECTIFY ANY MISTAKE IN ITS OWN ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT ON THE RECORD. THUS IT DEP ENDS UPON FACTS OF THE EACH CASE. THEREFORE JUDGMENTS CITED ARE DISTINGUISHABL E ON FACTS. THE EXTENT OF THIS MA NO.33/RJT/2011 3 POWER OF RECTIFICATION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF TS BALARAM ITO VS VOLKART BROS 82 ITR 50 ( SC). THE HONBLE APEX COURT HELD THAT - A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECOR D MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTAB LISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY B E CONSCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW I S NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION IT I S NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN ITS JUDGMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESSED WORDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS. THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) AS STATE D ABOVE IS VERY LIMITED AND IS TO RECTIFY THE APPARENT MISTAKE AND NOT TO REVIEW THE ORDER. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY DRAW AN INFERENCE THAT THE ASSE SSEE WANTS TO REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED THE ITAT WHICH IS BEYOND THE POWERS CO NFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL VIDE SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE WE DO NO T SEE ANY MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. AS SUCH THE MISCELLANEO US APPLICATION HAS TO FAIL. 5. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE AS M ENTIONED ABOVE. SD/- SD/- (T.K. SHARMA) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJKOT DT : 11 TH NOVEMBER 2011 PK/- MA NO.33/RJT/2011 4 COPY TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-IV AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CENTRAL-II AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR I.T.A.T. RAJKOT (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT RAJKOT