Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt.Ltd.,, Pune v. ACIT, Range-8,, Pune

MA 68/PUN/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 6824524 RSA 2011
Bench Pune
Appeal Number MA 68/PUN/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt.Ltd.,, Pune
Respondent ACIT, Range-8,, Pune
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 27-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 27-07-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 23-05-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH: PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM M.A. NO. 68/PN/2011 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 1519/PN/2008 A.Y. 2005-06 AJINKYA ELECTROMELT PVT. LTD. J-255 MIDC BHOSARI PUNE-411 026 PAN AABCA 512 M APPLICANT VS. ADDL. CIT RANGE 8 PUNE RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI R.G. NAHAR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.K. AMBASTH ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA N O. 1519/PN/2008 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 2. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING GROUND OF A PPEAL WAS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THE CASE AND AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW IT BE HELD THAT THE AMOUN T OF RS. 28 66 910/- HELD BY THE A.O AND CONFIRMED BY THE FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD IN COME FROM BUSINESS IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND M.A. 68/PN/2011 AJINKYA ELECTROMELT A.Y. 2005-06 - 2 - FACTS PREVAILING IN THE CASE IT FURTHER BE HELD THA T THE INCOME OF RS. 28 66 910/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN AS IS CLAIMED AND DECLA RED BY THE APPELLANT. JUST AND PROPER RELIEF BE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT IN THIS RESPECT. 3. FURTHER IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ARGUMENTS RAISED IN THIS BEHALF HAVE NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY T HE TRIBUNAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF CO-ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THIS BACKGROUND THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE TRIBUNALS DECISION SUFFERS FROM MISTAKE APPARE NT FROM RECORD SO AS TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 25 4(2) OF THE ACT. SO THE SAME SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. ON THE OTHE R HAND THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT IF THE PAYER OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED IT W OULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MA TERIAL ON RECORD WE DO NOT FIND IT A FIT CASE FOR INVOKIN G THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE GA RB OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT WHICH IS NO T PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE M.A. 68/PN/2011 AJINKYA ELECTROMELT A.Y. 2005-06 - 3 - THEREFORE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 5. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 27 TH JULY 2011. ANKAM COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEES 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A) II PUNE 4. CIT - III PUNE 5. ITAT D.R. PUNE BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE.