Astec Life Sciences Ltd, vs Assessee
- CitationI.T.A. No.7028/Mum/2012)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's power under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act is confined to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record; it does not extend to reviewing its own order. An application for rectification therefore fails where it merely re-narrates facts already considered by the Tribunal, which the assessee does not dispute, or seeks reconsideration of the merits of the order, such as the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the first appellate authority, and does not identify a specific error apparent on the face of the record.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND VIVEK VARMA, (JM) सव ी बी.आर.बा करन, लेखा सद य एवं ववेक वमा, या यक सद य के सम Miscellaneous Application No.395/Mum/2014 (Arising out of आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7028/Mum/2012) ( नधारण वष / Assessment Year:2007-08)
ASTEC Life Sciences Limited, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner of Income Elite Square, 7th floor, Vs. Tax 2(1), Mumbai 274, Perin Nariman Street, Mumbai-400001 (अपीलाथ /Appellant) .. ( यथ / Respondent)
थायी ले ख ा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. :AAACA4832D
अपीलाथ ओर से / Appellant by S/Shri Ashwin S Chhag
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by Shri Jeetendra Kumar
सन ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 16.1.2015 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement :16.1.2015
आदे श / O R D E R
Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:
The assessee has filed this Miscellaneous Petition on the ground that the order dated 27.8.2014 passed by the Tribunal in the assessee's case requires modification.
2. The ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee confirming the order of ld. CIT(A) in refusing to condone the delay. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Tribunal has not taken into account the factual details in the proper perspective and the Tribunal has also not followed the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and the decisions of various High Courts in this MA 395/M/2014 2
regard. He further submitted that non consideration of the decision of Apex Court and the Jurisdictional High Court can said to be a mistake apparent from record as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT V/s Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 173 Taxmann 322(SC). Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee had quoted many decisions at the time of hearing and the Tribunal has failed to consider them. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugn order may kindly be recalled.
3. On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal, u/s 254(2) of the Act, has only limited powers, i.e., it can rectify only mistakes apparent from record. The ld. DR further submitted that the Tribunal has properly considered the factual details available on record and accordingly concluded that the assessee has failed to show a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, he submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record. The assessee has failed to point out any specific mistake apparent from record, which needs to be rectified by the Tribunal and hence this petition should not be entertained.
4. We have heard the parties and perused the record. As submitted by the ld. DR, the powers of the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act is limited, i.e., it can only correct the mistakes apparent from record. The Tribunal does not have power to review its own order. We notice that the assessee, in this petition, has pointed out the factual details relating to demand of tax etc and also cited case laws which are relevant to the issue relating to condonation of delay. However, the perusal of the order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has considered the explanations furnished by the assessee with regard to the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in paras 9 and 10 of the order. Admittedly, the assessee did not dispute the factual details noted down by MA 395/M/2014 3
the Tribunal. Instead the assessee is again narrating certain events which were not relevant for the matter of condonation of delay. The consideration of these facts might possibly be led to review of the impugned order which the Tribunal is not empowered to do. Under these set of facts, we do not find any merit in the MA filed by the assessee.
5. In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed.
The above order was pronounced in the open court on 16.1.2015
th घोषणा खल ु े यायालय म दनांकः 16 Jan,2015 को क गई ।
sd sd ( ववेक वमा / VIVEK VARMA) (बी.आर.बा करन / B.R. BASKARAN) या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai: 16th Jan, 2015.
व. न.स./ SRL , Sr. PS
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. आयकर आयु त / CIT concerned
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, true copy सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मुंबई /ITAT, Mumbai
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free