Saraf Exports, Jhunjhunu vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA No.390, 679/JP/13 & C.O. 30,52/JP/13)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on the following principles, stated in the order the court takes them: A miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, seeking rectification of an earlier order of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal failed to consider a decision of the Supreme Court, is dismissed where the Tribunal had in fact considered that decision in its earlier order and decided the issue in accordance with the amended statutory provision; a mistake of the kind that can be rectified under section 254(2) must be apparent from the record, and the Tribunal's reasoning in deciding the issue on a considered basis is not such a mistake.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] yscL; ds le{k (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R.MEENA) M.A. No.44/JP/2014 (A/o ITA No.390, 679/JP/13 & C.O. 30,52/JP/13) Assessment Year : 2009-10 PAN : AATFS 9394N
The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s.Saraf Export, Jhunjhunu. Sardarshar. vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent M.A. No.45/JP/2014 (A/o ITA No.739/JP/12) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s.Saraf Export, Circle, Jhunjhunu. Sardarshar. vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent M.A. No.46/JP/2014 (A/o ITA No.819/JP/13) Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. M/s.Saraf Seasoning Udyog, Circle, Jhunjhunu. Sardarshar. vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
foHkkx dh vksj ls@Department by : Sh.Kailash Mangal (JCIT) fu/kkZfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh.Suresh Ojha & D.S.Bohra, (Adv.)
lquokbZ dh frfFk@Date of Hearing : 10.04.2015 ?kks"k.kk dh frfFk@Date of Pronouncemtnt: 10.04.2015 ,e-,-la-44@tsih@14&eSallZ ljkZQ ,DliksVZl~] ljnkj'kgj - 2- vkns'k ORDER PER T.R.MEENA, AM:-
The revenue filed M.A. in all the cases wherein it has been contended that
Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in its order ITA No.390/JP/2013, C.O. 13/JP/13 and ITA
679/JP/13, C.O.53/JP/13 dated 27.12.2013 has not considered the Hon'ble
Supreme Court decision in case of Liberty India 317 ITR 218(SC) that duty draw
back income is not part of 80IB deduction & resulted Platently wrong & improper
decision given by the Hon'ble ITAT in all the cases (A/o ITA No. 390, 679/JP/13 &
C.O. 30, 52/JP/13, 739/JP/12, 819/JP/13) which is apparent mistake on the part of
Hon'ble ITAT.
2. The Ld.A.R. for the assessee's file written submission and argued that
application submitted by the A.O. u/s 254(2) of the IT Act is not at all an
application. The order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal is a conscious order
therefore the application is not at all application in para 2 of this revenue M.A.
worded the application that Hon'ble ITAT's order in case of the assessee's
"patently wrong and improper due to following reasons". The language of
application itself stated that the view which is in favour of department must
have been taken.
,e-,-la-44@tsih@14&eSallZ ljkZQ ,DliksVZl~] ljnkj'kgj
- 3-
The department wants to dected his condition for accepting the application in
the moreover in which the department wants. The department had admitted
that matter is debatable which can not be rectify u/s 254(2) of the IT Act by
relying Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of Vokard India 82 ITR 50 further
department has admitted as under :-
"Further it is a trite that when any amended provision is not considered or for that matter any relevant provision of the Act is not considered while giving a judgment, it is treated as in per curium........................"
3. The Hon'ble Tribunal had considered the judgement Liberty India (supra) in
above decision. Therefore he requested to impose cost on AO for not drafting
proper application for rectification with respect to Hon'ble ITAT's order u/s 254(2)
of the IT Act and same may be dismissed. He further relied upon following cases:-
1. ITA No.22 & 23/Jodh/2012 M/s.Saraf Export,
2. 82 ITR 50 T.S.Balram
3. 237 ITR 165 Keshari Metal Pvt.Ltd.,
4. 192 ITR 252 Indian Steel & Wire Product
5. 247 ITR 274 Prakash Chand Nahta
6. 168 ITR 809 ITO Vs. ITAT
7. M.A.49/Jodh./2008 Choksi Heraeus P.Ltd.,
8. M.A. 10/JU/2009 Hanumangarh Kray Vikray Sah.Sam.
9. 72 Taxmann 43 Kamalakshi Finance Corpn.Ltd.,(SC)
4. We have heard the rival submission of both the parties and perused the
material available on record. This Bench has considered the Hon'ble Supreme ,e-,-la-44@tsih@14&eSallZ ljkZQ ,DliksVZl~] ljnkj'kgj
- 4-
Court decision in case of Liberty India (supra) in assessee's case and decided issue
as per the amended provision of 80IB of the IT Act. Therefore we dismiss all the
three M.A.s filed by the revenue.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.04.2015
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.P.TOLANI) (T.R.MEENA) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
t;iqj@Jaipur, fnukad@Date : 10/04/2015
*Basant*
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs "kr@Copy of the order forwarded to :-
1- mik;qDr vk;dj] >q> a uq @ wa The DCIT, Jhunjhunu. 2- eSallZ ljkZQ ,DliksVZ] ljnkj'kgj@M/s.Saraf Export, Sardarshar. 3- foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] t;iqj@The D.R. ITAT, Jaipur 4- xkMZ QkbZy@The Guard File (in M.A. No.44/JP/2014)
vkns'kkuqlkj By Order
lgk;d iathdkj@Assistant Registrar
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