The ACIT, Bhopal v. M/s R K Hotels PVT, Ltd., Bhopal

MA 7/IND/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 722724 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACR8986K
Bench Indore
Appeal Number MA 7/IND/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, Bhopal
Respondent M/s R K Hotels PVT, Ltd., Bhopal
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 16-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 16-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 16-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 16-04-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 12-03-2010
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V.K. GUPTA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO.7/IND/2010 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.383/IND/2010) A.Y. 2006-07 ACIT-3(1) BHOPAL APPELLANT VS M/S. R.K. HOTELS PVT. LTD. 243-A ZONE-1 M.P. NAGAR BHOPAL (PAN AAACR 8986 K) RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : S/SH. H.P. VERMA & ASHISH GOYAL O R D E R PER BENCH THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED BY THE REVENU E ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 31.3.2009 WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY T HE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 6.10.2009. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TR IBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF TAX IS BELOW PRESCRIBED LIMIT T HEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE CBDT THE APPEAL WAS D ISMISSED BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. DURING HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. SR. DR THOUGH DEFENDED THE 2 MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BUT DID NOT POINT OUT THAT T HE TAX EFFECT WAS MORE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE ORDER OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY CONTENDING THAT THE TAX EFFECT WAS BELOW MONETARY LIMIT THEREFORE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE WAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED AND SECONDLY THE POWERS OF T HE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) ARE VERY LIMITED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE TAX EFFECT WAS BELOW MONETARY PRESCRIBED L IMIT THEREFORE IN VIEW OF CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.1979 DATED 23.3.2000 N O.1985 DATED 19.6.2000 AND INSTRUCTIONS OF VARIOUS DATES AS MENT IONED IN PARA 3 (PAGE 2) OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 6.10.20 09 THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN THE TR IBUNAL HAS ALREADY FOLLOWED VARIOUS DECISIONS OF CHANDIGARH BENCH AS H AS BEEN MENTIONED AT PAGE 4 OF THE ORDER DATED 6.10.2009. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL. EVEN OTHERWISE THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) AR E VERY LIMITED AND MERITS OF THE CASE CANNOT BE GONE INTO. ONLY THE MI STAKE LIKE ARITHMETICAL OR FACTUAL MISTAKE CAN BE RECTIFIED. T HE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWERS TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER AND CANNOT GO INTO M ERITS OF THE APPEAL AGAIN AND TO COME TO A FINDING THAT ORDER WAS SOUND ON THE BASIS OF THE 3 MATERIAL SOUGHT TO BE RELIED UPON. OUR VIEW IS FURT HER FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: NIRANJAN & CO. LTD. VS. ITAT (122 ITR 519)(CAL); CIT VS. ITAT (196 ITR 646) (ORI); CIT VS. SUMAN TEA & PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES P. LTD. (22 6 ITR 34)(CAL); CIT VS. ITAT (155 TAXMAN 378)(DEL); POPULAR ENGG. CO. VS. ITAT (248 ITR 577)(P & H); MENTHA & ALLIED PRODUCTS (244 ITR 470)(DEL); ACIT VS. DR. VED PRAKASH (209 ITR 448)(AP). IN VIEW OF THE AFORESTATED FACTS AND SPECIALLY WHEN THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED ON TAX EFFECT ONLY THEREFORE THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION OF THE REVENUE AS THERE IS N O MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. RESULTANTLY THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 16.4.2010. (V.K. GUPTA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16.4.2010 {VYAS} COPY TO APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(A) DR GU ARD FILE