Promukh Hoffmann International ... vs Assessee

M/s. Promukh Hoffmann V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax International Ltd., Circle 16(3), Hyderabad Secunderabad.

(PAN - AACCP 3340 H)

(Applicant) (Respondent)

Applicant by : Shri C.P.Ramaswami

Respondent by : Shri Ramakrishna Bandi DR

Date of Hearing 06.2.2015 Date of Pronouncement 20.03.2015

ORDER

Per B.Ramakotaiah, Accountant Member :

By these applications under S.254(2) of the Income Tax Act,1961, which are almost identically worded, the applicant- assessee seeks rectification/recall of the order of this Tribunal dated 14.10.2011 inter-alia in ITA No.348/Hyd/2010 of the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 and Cross Objection No.19/Hyd/2011 of the assessee in ITA No.1314/Hyd/2010 of the Revenue for the assessment year 2003-04, on the ground that certain mistakes apparent from record have crept into the same.

2 MA No.162 & 163/Hyd/2014 (in ITA No.348/Hyd/2010 & CO 198/Hyd /11) M/s.Promukh Hoffmann International Ltd., Secunderabad.

2. Reiterating the averments made in these applications, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that there are contradictions in the conclusions of the Tribunal in para 12 of the common order on pages No.10 thereof. It is submitted that while on one hand, in the initial portion of para 12 on page 10 of the order, it has been observed that the assessee has completed 'only setting up of the plant and machinery and establishing of manufacturing facility for commencing the business as and when other pre-requisites are fulfilled', it concluded in the later portion of para 12 on page 10 of the order that there is no infirmity in the reasoning given by the CIT(A) before concluding 'that the assessee cannot be said to have set up the business, and having not commenced thus the business activity, no business income could be assessed in the hands of the assessee'. In view of these contradictions in the findings of the Tribunal, it is prayed that the order of this Tribunal dated 14.10.2011 is liable to be rectified or recalled.

3. The Learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, submitted that there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal dated 14.10.2011, warranting any rectification or recall.

4. We have heard the arguments of both the sides on these applications and also perused the relevant material on record. On an overall reading of the order of the Tribunal, we do not find any mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal dated 14.10.2011, warranting any rectification or recall, even though there appears some confusion when certain portions of para 12 of the order, discussed in these applications, are read in isolation. Having confirmed the order of the learned CIT(A), all that the 3 MA No.162 & 163/Hyd/2014 (in ITA No.348/Hyd/2010 & CO 198/Hyd /11) M/s.Promukh Hoffmann International Ltd., Secunderabad.

Tribunal has held, which we hereby clarify, is that the assessee can be said to have completed the process of setting up of the plant and machinery and establishing of manufacturing facility for commencing the business as and when other pre-requisites are fulfilled, but not actually commenced the business; and since no business, thus, has commenced in the relevant years under consideration, no business income could be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. In this view of the matter, the present applications of the assessee are devoid of merit. They are accordingly rejected.

5. In the result, both the applications of the assessee are rejected.

Order pronounced in the court on 20th March, 2015

Sd/- Sd/-

(Saktijit Dey) (B.Ramakotaiah) Judicial Member Accountant Member

Dt/- 20th March, 2015

Copy forwarded to:

1. M/s. Promukh Hoffmann International Ltd., 204 Swapnalok Complex, Secunderabad.

2. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 16(3), Hyderabad

3. Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) V, Hyderabad

4. Commissioner of Income-tax IV, Hyderabad

5. Departmental Representative, ITAT, Hyderabad.

B.V.S