M/s. Trisuns Export Corporation,, GANDHIDHAM v. The Income Tax Office, Ward-2,, GANDHIDHAM

MA 9/RJT/2013 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 924924 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AABHL5906P
Bench Rajkot
Appeal Number MA 9/RJT/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Trisuns Export Corporation,, GANDHIDHAM
Respondent The Income Tax Office, Ward-2,, GANDHIDHAM
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 26-07-2013
Next Hearing Date 26-07-2013
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 18-04-2013
Judgment Text
I IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH RAJKOT . . 3 R . . BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA AM M. A . NO. 0 9 /RJT/2013 (ARISEN OUT OF THE ORDER IN ITA NO. 1000/RJT/2009 ) R R / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997 - 98 M/S. TRISUNS EXPORT CORPORATION SHOP NO.24 VIVEKANAND MARKET PLOT NO.122/123 SECTOR - 8 GANDHIDHAM PAN : AABHL 5906 P ( 0 / APPELLANT) IT O WARD - 2 GANDHIDHAM O0 / RESPONDENT M.A. NOS. 10 TO 12/RJT/2013 (ARISEN OUT OF THE ORDER IN ITA NOS. 195 TO 197 /RJT/20 05 ) R R / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998 - 99 TO 200 0 - 01 M/S. TRISUNS EXPORT CORPORATION GANDHIDHAM PAN : AABHL 5906 P ( 0 / APPELLANT) ITO WARD - 2 GANDHIDHAM O0 / RESPONDENT REN / ASSESSEE BY NONE H N / REVENUE BY SHRI ANKUR GARG DR N / DATE OF HEARING 26 . 0 7 . 2013 N / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31 . 0 7. 2013 / ORDER . . 3 R / T. K. SHARMA J. M. : THESE FOUR MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE WHICH READS AS UNDER: - THE APPELLANT BE GS TO PREFER THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ON THE FOLLOWING AMONGS T OTHER GROUNDS WHICH MAY BE URGED BEFORE OR DURING THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPLICATION: 1 . THAT THE HONBLE ITAT WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - EXAMINE THE SAME ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SC IN THE CASE OF MUKUNDRARY K. SHAH OUGHT TO HAVE KEPT THE ENTIRE ISSUE OPEN FOR CONSIDERATION AS THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE VIS A VIS MUKUNDRAY K. SHAH ARE NOT ON THE SAME FOOTING. IF THE CASE OF THE APPLICANT WILL BE EXAMINED ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF MUKUNDRAY K. SHAH IT WILL BE DECIDED WHICH WILL DEBAR A.O. FROM CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND OTHER CASE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT. 2 . THE HONBLE ITAT WHILE RESTORING THE MATTER TO A.O. HAS NOT MA 9 TO 12 - RJT - 2013 2 EXPRESSEDLY STATED THAT THE JUDGMENTS RELIED BY AR ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO FACTS OF THE CASE. THEREFORE THE MATTER THOUGH RESTORED SHOULD BE CASE OF REMAND WITH ISSUE OPEN FROM ALL ANGLES AND CONSIDERING THE TAXABILITY OF DEEMED DIVIDEND AS A WHOLE. 3 . THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER BE CLAR IFIED TO HAVE BEEN RESTORED WITH ENTIRE ISSUE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2 (22)(E) TO BE RE - EXAMINED INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MUKUNDRAY K. SHAH. 4 . THE CLARIFICATION IS SOUGHT WHICH MAY PLEASE BE MADE AVAILABLE. 2. THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS PE RSONALLY SERVED ON THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON 12.07.2013 BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 26.07.2006 NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. WE THEREFORE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE ALL THESE FOUR M ISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATIONS ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED F OR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT BY THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE IS SEEK ING REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 17.06.2011. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER U/S 254(2) . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUNA L IN ITS ORDER DATED 17.06.2011 HAS TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION WHEREBY IT HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE - EXAMINE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MUKUNDRAY K SHAH (2007 ) 290 ITR 433 . THEREFORE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE REJECTED. 3. HAVING HEARD THE LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONTENTS OF THE M ISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION S . I T IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRIBUNAL OR A STATUTORY BODY HAS NO INHERENT POWER TO REVIEW. THE POWER O F REVIEW MUST BE EXPRESSLY CONFERRED BY THE STATUTE. REVIEW OF AN ORDER MEANS RE - EXAMINATION OR TO GIVE A SECOND VIEW OF THE MATTER FOR THE PURP OSE OF ALTERATION OR REVERSAL OF THE VIEW ALREADY TAKEN AFTER CHANGING THE EARLIER OPINION OR VIEW. ADMITTEDLY BY THESE MISCELLANEOU S MA 9 TO 12 - RJT - 2013 3 APPLICATIONS THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING A REVIEW WHICH POWER IS NOT VESTED ON THE TRIBUNAL. WE THEREFORE DISMISS ALL THE FOUR MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT ALL THE FOUR MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . H D. K. S RIVASTAVA ) ( . . R / T. K. SHARMA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER H / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ORDER DATE 3 1 . 0 7. 2013. /RAJKOT * BT T RJO SO / COPY OF ORDER FORWA RDED TO: - 1 . 0 / APPELLANT - M/S. TRISUNS EXPORT CORPORATION GANDHIDHAM 2 . O0 / RESPONDENT - ITO WARD - 2 GANDHIDHAM 3 . I T / CONCERNED CIT - I RAJKOT 4 . T - / CIT (A) - I I RAJKOT 5 . I I / DR ITAT RAJKOT 6 . R / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER TRUE COPY PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT RAJKOT