Core Jewellery P. Ltd, vs Assessee

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अिधकरण मुंबई Ûयायपीठ मुंबई ।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " C " BENCH, MUMBAI

सव[ौी एन. के. ǒबलैáया , लेखा सदःय एवं संजय गग[ Ûयाियक सदःय सम¢

BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA,ACCOUNTNT MEMBER & SHRI SANJAY GARG ,JUDICIAL MEMBER

M.A. NO.334/MUM/2014 Arising out of ITA No.8366/Mum/2011, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09

M/s. Core Jewellery Pvt. बनाम The DCI T 8(1), बनाम/ Ltd. Mumbai Vs. GJ-04, SDF VII, SEEPZ, Andheri (East) Mumbai.

ःथायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . /PAN/GIR No. : AABCC 1946P (Applicant) .. Respondent)

Applicant by Shri B.V.Javeri Respondent by Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 23/01/2015 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 28/01/2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER N.K.BILLAIYA, A.M:

This Miscellaneous Application by the assessee is directed against the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.8366/Mum/2011 dated 27/2/2013 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. The assessee claimed that the Tribunal has erred in not allowing deduction under section 10A of the Act on the incomes which were derived from the export business carried out by the assessee during the year under consideration. It is the claim of the assessee that the said profits are entitled to exemption under section 10A of the Act.

2 M.A. NO.334/MUM/2014 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the assessment order and order of the First Appellate Authority and pointed out that the factual details were very much before the Revenue Authorities and the same details were placed before the Tribunal during the course of the hearing. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that the Tribunal has not considered the factual details in the right perspective which has resulted into a mistake apparent from the record which needs to be rectified.

3. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly stated that what the Counsel is stating was never argued before the Tribunal and therefore, the same cannot be considered at this stage.

4. Having heard the rival submissions, we have carefully perused the Miscellaneous Application and the order of the lower authorities and also the order of the Tribunal in ITA No.8366/Mum/2011. We find that on the given set of facts both the lower authorities have categorically stated that the facts are identical to the facts of assessment year 2004-05. The Tribunal has also considered the issue at para-10 of its order and held that the case before the Tribunal is identical to assessment year 2004-05 and thereafter the Tribunal has followed the findings given by the Tribunal in assessment year 2004-05 and respectfully following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

5. It is clear that the Revenue Authorities as well as the Tribunal has followed the order of the Co-ordinate Bench for assessment 2004-05. For the first time before us with this Miscellaneous Application the Ld. Counsel has raised the issue that the fact of assessment year 2004-05 are not pari-materia to the facts of the year under consideration. In our considered opinion this plea cannot make the order of the Tribunal erroneous nor it can bring any mistake apparent from record which can be rectified. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. 203 ITR 497 (Bom) has held that the Tribunal has no power to review its own orders and only mistake apparent from record can be rectified, failure to consider arguments is not an 3 M.A. NO.334/MUM/2014

error apparent from record and the Tribunal cannot redecide the matter. Drawing support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed.

6. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28/01/2015 .

आदे श कȧ धोषणा खुले Ûयायालय मɅ Ǒदनांकः 28/01/2015 को कȧ गई ।

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG ) (N.K.BILLAIYA) Ûयाियक सदःय /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदःय /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; Ǒदनांक Dated 28/01/2015

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 व.िन.स Rj