Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Acit, Central Circle-3(1), Hyd, ... vs Highgrace Investments Pvt Ltd, Hyd, ... on 17 October, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH "A", HYDERABAD
BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
M.A. No. 53/Hyd/2017
(in M.A. No. 90/H/2016 and
in ITA No. 670/Hyd/2015
Assessment Year: 2004-05)
Asst. Commissioner of Income- vs. M/s Highgrace Investments
tax, Central Circle - 3(1), Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.
Hyderabad.
PAN - AAACH5018G
(Applicant) (Respondent)
Revenue by : Smt. Suman Malik
Assessee by : Shri K.C. Devdas
Date of hearing 15-09-2017
Date of pronouncement 17-10-2017
O RDE R
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.:
This MA filed by the revenue is against the order of the Tribunal dated 15/03/2017 passed in MA No. 90/Hyd/2016 (ITA No. 670/Hyd/2015) wherein the Tribunal has dismissed the MA observing that in the consequential order of the AO pursuant to the direction of the CIT(A), the assessed income of the assessee is negative, and therefore, the question of taxable income does not arise in this case, thus, the MA filed by the revenue was dismissed.
2. In the present M.A., the revenue submits as under:
"1) The A.O. assessed the income/loss from business declared by the assessee as speculation loss, which is allowed to be carried forward and the interest income of Rs. 29,61,593/- was treated as income from other sources resulting in a demand of 2 M.A. No. 90/Hyd/2016 Highgrace Investments P. Ltd.
Rs. 10,62,471/- excluding the interest levied u/s 234B of the I.T. Act.
2) It is specified in the Board's instruction no. 21 of 2015, upon which the ITAT relied, that the tax would include notional tax on disputed additions as per the Para 4 of the said circular.
3) Even if the aggregate tax effect is below the limit prescribed for filing appeal before the Hon'ble High Court, in CBDT instruction NO.3 of 2011, the case falls in exceptions laid down in the said instruction as there was an RAP objection which was accepted by the Dept. As these are a mistake apparent from record, it is prayed that the same may be rectified by the Hon'ble ITAT u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act by passing suitable orders."
3. Ld. DR submitted that as there is a mistake apparent from record in the order the Tribunal in M.A. No. 90/Hyd/2016 and prayed that the same may be rectified by passing suitable orders.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused material on record. Admittedly this is the MA filed by the revenue against the order in M.A. No. 90/Hyd/2016 which cannot be entertained u/s. 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal has rejected the first MA filed by the revenue u/s. 254(2) of the Act on the ground that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record in the order of the Tribunal. It is not open to the Tribunal to entertain the second application which was filed on the same set of facts and to recall its appellate order on the alleged premise that there was an error apparent in the order of the Tribunal. U/s 254(2) of the Act, only an order passed u/s 254(1) can be rectified and not an order passed u/s 254(2) of the Act as held in the case of CIT Vs. ITAT reported in [1992] 196 ITR 838, 840 (On).
3 M.A. No. 90/Hyd/2016Highgrace Investments P. Ltd.
5. In the result, the MA filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on 17 th October, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated: 17 th October, 2017
kv
Copy to:-
1) ACIT, Central Circle - 3(1), 3 r d Floor, Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.
2) M/s Highgrace Investments Pvt. Ltd., RK Residency, H.No. 8-3-229/D/32, 1 st Floor, Venkatagiri, Yousufguda, Hyd.
3) CIT(A) - 12, Hyderabad
4) CIT (Central), Hyderabad
5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad.
6) Guard File