Chemspec Chemicals P.Ltd , vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationI.T.A. No.503/Mum/2004)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may rectify a mistake apparent from the record in its earlier order under the miscellaneous application power, and it will do so only where the error is obvious and, if corrected, could affect the conclusion reached in the order; a factual error that would not have altered the outcome, because the position on the date of the original decision was the same as stated in the corrected version, is not such a mistake and does not warrant recall or alteration of the order. Where the factual premise of the earlier order is verified against records supplied by the parties (here, a court website printout) and found accurate as of the date of decision, the Tribunal declines to treat the statement as a mistake and rejects the request for rectification on that point; a subsequent development occurring after the order was passed cannot render the earlier order erroneous.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
सव[ौी आय.पी. बंसल, Ûयाियक सदःय एवं , आर.सी. शमा[, लेखा सदःय के सम¢
BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM
M.A. No. 21/Mum/2013 (Arising out of I.T.A. No.503/Mum/2004) Block Period from 1 s t April 1990 to 22 nd January, 2001) The ACIT-1(1), M/s. Chemspec Chemicals Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai-400 020 Union Commercial House, 9,Wallace
ःथायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AAACC 3620K (अपीलाथȸ /Appellant) .. (ू×यथȸ / Respondent)
अपीलाथȸ ओर से/ Appellant by: ` Shri Asghar Zain VP ू×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Ajay Thakore
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing :09.01.2015 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement :09.01.2015
आदे श / O R D E R
PER R.C. SHARMA, AM:
Vide Miscellaneous application filed as above, the department is claiming that some mistakes have crept in the order of the Tribunal dt. 29th March, 2012 passed in IT(SS)A No. 503/M/04 whereby appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed .
2. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR was asked to specify the particular mistakes which according to department have crept in the order 2 M.A. No.21/M/2013
of the Tribunal. It was pointed out by Ld. DR that such grievance of the Revenue is mentioned in para-2.2. and para 2.3 of the application. For the sake of completeness, these two paras are reproduced below:
"2.2. On perusal of the instant judgement of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai dt. 29.3.2012 at para 15A, it is noticed that ITAT has mentioned that as per computer record made available to them, the Hon'ble High Court rejected the W.P. No. WPL/1044/2011 (Reg. No. WP/835/2012) in the case of M/s. Bhaichand Amoluk Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. on 17.8.2011. In this regard, it is submitted that the said W.P. No. WPL/1044/2011 (Reg. No. WP/835/2012) is yet to be finalized by the Hon'ble Hihh Court and the same is scheduled for hearing on 13.2.2013 (as per printout taken from the website of Bombay High Court, copy of the same is enclosed herewith for kind perusal.
2.3. Further, on perusal of para-16 of the instant judgement of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai dt. 29.3.2012, it is mentioned that the department's Writ Petition No. WPL/1284 of 2011 in the case of M/s. Chemspec Chemicals Pvt. Ltd was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 29.6.2011. In this regard, it is submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court had decided the said W.P. No. WPL/1284 of 2011 (Reg. No. 830 of 2012) on 13.8.2012, which is after the date of ITAT's order dt. 29.3.2012 (copy of Hon'ble Bombay High Court order dt. 13.8.2012 is enclosed herewith for kind perusal.
3. As it can be seen from the above grievance of the Revenue, para- 2.2 relates to mistake alleged to have occurred in para-15A of the Tribunal. In para-15A, the Tribunal has stated that the writ petition No. WPL/1044/2011 filed on 23.5.2011, as per computer record made available to the Tribunal, was rejected by Hon'ble High Court u/s. 986 on 17th August, 2011. According to Revenue, such mention made by the Tribunal is incorrect as the said writ petition is yet to be finalized by the Hon'ble High Court and the same is scheduled for hearing on 13.2.2013 3 M.A. No.21/M/2013
and for this purpose revenue is relying upon the printout taken from the website of Hon'ble Bombay High Court.
4. We have heard both the parties on this issue. According to copy of information obtained from the site of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, which is placed at page-17 of the Paper book, writ petition No. WPL/1044/2011 filed on 23rd May, 2011 was rejected u/s. 986 on 17th August, 2011. Therefore, we found that the observations of the Tribunal in para-15A are not incorrect and subsequently department may have got revived that order. Therefore, we do not find any mistake in para-15A of the order of the Tribunal and this request of the Revenue is rejected.
5. Now coming to the mistake pointed out by the Revenue in para-16, it was pointed out by both the parties that as per page-18 of the paper book, the said writ petition which is mentioned in para-16 i.e. W.P. No. 1284 of 2011 filed on 29th June, 2011 was also rejected u/s. 986 vide order dt. 7th September, 2011. This was the position upto the date when the Tribunal has passed the order. However, while mentioning such fact, Tribunal has wrontly mentioned that the said writ petition was dismissed by Hon'ble High Court vide judgement dt. 29.6.2011. Thus, there is a obvious mistake in para-16 of the order of the Tribunal as the writ petition was not dismissed but rejected u/s. 986 on 7.9.2011. The said mistake is being rectified and now para-16 is replaced with the following para:
"16. On a similar matter, the Revenue has filed a Writ Peition in CIT Vs ITAT, W.P. No. 1284 of 2011, and the Hon'nle Jurisdictional High Court vide order dt. 7.9.2011 has rejected the Writ Petition u/s. Rule 986 of Bombay H.C. (original side) Rule."
4 M.A. No.21/M/2013 6. It was the claim of the Revenue that this mistake may lead to a conclusion different from the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal in the departmental appeal. We do not find any force in such contention of the Revenue as, in any case, on the date when Tribunal decided the matter, the Writ Petition mentioned in the order of the Tribunal in para-16 was in the state of rejection. Therefore, on that account, there cannot be any mistake in the order of the Tribunal which could affect the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal.
7. Moreover, it was brought to our notice that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide its order dt. 12th December, 2014 has already admitted two substantial question of law against the impugned order of the Tribunal in Income Tax Appeal No. 1544 of 2012. Copy of the order has been placed on our record.
8. In view of our above discussion, Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is partly allowed in the manner aforesaid.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on 09.01.2015.
आदे श कȧ धोषणा खुले Ûयायालय मɅ Ǒदनांकः 09.01.2015 को कȧ गई ।
Sd/- Sd/- (I.P. BANSAL ) (R.C. SHARMA) Ûयाियक सदःय/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदःय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; Ǒदनांक Dated 09.01.2015 व.िन.स./ RJ , Sr. PS 5 M.A. No.21/M/2013
आदे श कȧ ूितिलǒप अमेǒषत/Copy षत of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. ू×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƠ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयुƠ / CIT
5. ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ ार BY ORDER, स×याǒपत ूित //True Copy// उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण 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