U.P Stat Industrial Development ... vs Assessee
- CitationI.T.A.No. 447/Lkw/2012)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The rectification application under section 254(2) fails because the impugned order is not shown to contain any mistake apparent from the record; where the tribunal's direction to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a speaking order on the assessee's objections against reassessment proceedings is in line with a decision of the Supreme Court (GKN Drive Shafts), that direction is not a mistake, and reliance on a contrary High Court decision (Allana Cold Storage) does not by itself establish one.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
M/s U. P. State Industrial Vs. DCIT - 6, Development Corporation Ltd., Kanpur. A-1/4, Lakhanpur, Kanpur. PAN: AAACU1759K (Applicant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri P. K. Kapoor, C.A. Respondent by Sri R. K. Ram, Senior DR
Date of hearing 12/06/2015 Date of pronouncement 18/06/2015
ORDER
PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.
This Misc. Applications is filed by the assessee stating that there are certain mistakes in the tribunal order which should be rectified u/s 254 (2) of the I. T. Act, 1961.
2. In the M.A., it is submitted that the assessee had placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Allana Cold Storage Ltd. vs. ITO, 287 ITR 1. It is also stated that as per this judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court, once the judicial requirement to adjudicate and decide 'objection' is not found to have been complied with (by the Assessing Officer), the proceedings u/s 147 gets invalidated and no further action lies from that stage. It is also stated that in Para - 5 of the impugned tribunal order, the [2]
matter restored to the A.O. for passing order on objections of the assessee regarding validity of reassessment proceedings and if such objections are rejected then the A.O. should reframe the assessment order. It is also stated that this part of the directions contained in Para - 5 of the impugned tribunal order should be modified.
3. Learned AR of the assessee reiterated the same contentions as raised in the M.A. Learned DR submitted that there is no mistake in the tribunal order.
4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in the same Para - 5 of the impugned tribunal order, Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of GKN Drive shafts (India) Ltd. 259 ITR 19 is also noted and followed and as per this judgment of Hon'ble apex court, it was held that the matter should be restored to the A.O. and the A.O. should pass speaking order on the objections of the assessee. Therefore, the tribunal order is in line with this judgment of Hon'ble apex court and therefore, there is no mistake in the impugned tribunal order.
5. In the result, the Misc. Application of the assessee is dismissed.
(Order was pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page)
Sd/. Sd/.
(SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) Judicial Member Accountant Member
Dated:18/06/2015 *C.L.Singh
Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Lucknow Asstt. 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