Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Sharon Ashok Ranpise,, Pune vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 19 August, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण] पण
ु े यायपीठ "ए "पण
ु े म
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "A", PUNE
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND
SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM
आयकर अपील सं . / M.A. No.55/PUN/2018
(Arising out of ITA No.2187/PUN/2013)
नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2008-09
The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, ...... Applicant.
Central Circle - 2(2), Pune.
बनाम v/s
Mrs. Sharon Ashok Ranpise,
Flat No.701 to 704, Jasmine ......Respondent
Building, Flower Valley,
Wanworie, Pune - 411 040.
PAN : AFHPR1986B.
Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan.
Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Garg.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख / घोषणा क तार ख /
Date of Hearing : 26.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 19.08.2019
आदे श / ORDER
PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :
1. The Miscellaneous application (M.A.) arising out of the order of Tribunal in ITA No.2187/PUN/2013 for A.Y. 2008-09 has been filed by the assessee.
2. Before us, Ld.A.R. submitted that while deciding the Revenue's appeal the Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 21.01.2018 had partly allowed the Revenue's appeal whereby with respect to ground No.1 of Revenue, on addition of Rs.7,50,000/-, the Tribunal has reversed the order of Ld.CIT(A) and upheld the order of AO. He submitted that while reversing the order of Ld.CIT(A), the Hon'ble ITAT has held that requirements of Sec.68 of the Act have not been proved but had at the same time ignored the provisions of 2 Sec.132(4A)(ii) and thus an error has occurred in the order of the Tribunal. With respect to ground No.2 which was in connection with the scaling down of the cost of renovation of four flats estimated by AO at Rs.1,50,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/- by Ld.CIT(A), ITAT had restricted the addition to Rs.50,00,000/-. Ld.A.R. submitted that the Tribunal has passed an order on this issue which is adverse to assessee. He submitted that mere fact that assessee has not filed appeal against the order of Ld.CIT(A) to avoid protracted litigation does not mean that assessee has accepted the correctness of the addition upheld by Ld.CIT(A). He further submitted that while passing the order to restrict the addition to Rs.50 lacs, ITAT has ignored the contentions raised by assessee of the incorrectness of the valuation report and matter of valuation report be referred to DVO, before AO and Ld.CIT(A). He therefore submitted that it has resulted into error in the order of Tribunal and therefore the order passed by the Tribunal be recalled to correct the alleged errors.
3. The Ld DR on the other hand objected to the submissions made by Ld AR and submitted that that the Hon'ble Bench while deciding the appeal of the assessee had considered the submissions of the assessee and has thereafter decided the issues. He submitted that there was no apparent mistake in the order of Tribunal. He further submitted that through this M.A., the assessee is seeking a review of the order passed by the Tribunal which is not permissible under the Act. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric And Trading Co. reported in [1993] 203 ITR 497 for the proposition that the Appellate Tribunal does not have any power to review its own orders under the provisions of the Act. He therefore submitted that the M.A. filed by the assessee be dismissed.
3
4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The grievance of the assessee as stated in M.A. is that the Tribunal while upholding the order of AO with respect to addition of Rs.7.50 lacs has observed that the requirement of Sec.68 of the Act were not proved by assessee but has ignored the provisions of Sec.132(4A)(ii) of the Act. With respect to the cost of renovation of four flats where the addition has been restricted to Rs.50 lacs as against Rs.30 lacs estimated by Ld.CIT(A), it is the contention of assessee that the contentions raised by assessee before AO and Ld.CIT(A) have not been considered. It is a settled law that the power of rectification under section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake which is sought to be rectified is an obvious and patent mistake which is apparent from the record, and not a mistake which requires to be established by arguments and a long drawn process of reasoning. Further, the Tribunal cannot in exercise of its power of rectification, look into some other circumstances which would support or not support its conclusion so arrived at. The mistake which the Tribunal is entitled to correct is not an error of judgment but a mistake which is apparent from the record itself. In the present case, Ld.CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.30 lacs as against Rs.1.50 crore made by the AO and before the Tribunal, assessee has also not placed any material on record to substantiate the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards the renovation cost of flats and it is also a fact that against the additions upheld by Ld.CIT(A), assessee was not in appeal. We are thus of the view that there is no mistake which is apparent from the record. Further, the Tribunal has no power to review its own order as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Co. (1993) 203 ITR 497 (Bom.). We further find that Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gokul Chand Agarwal reported in (1993) 202 ITR 14 has held that an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake 4 rectifiable u/s 245(2) of the Act. In view of the aforesaid facts and following the decisions cited hereinabove, we are of the view that since the assessee has failed to point out any mistake apparent from record in the order as contemplated u/s 254(2) of the Act, we are not inclined to recall the order of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.2187/PUN/2013 order dated 23.01.2018 and thus the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed.
5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application of assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on 19th day of August, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUSHMA CHOWLA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI)
या यक सद#य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद#य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे Pune; दनांक Dated : 19th August, 2019.
Yamini
आदे श क% & त(ल)प अ*े)षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent
3. CIT(A), Central, Pune.
4. CIT, Central, Pune. 5 "वभागीय %त%न&ध, आयकर अपील य अ&धकरण, "ए "/ DR, ITAT, "A" Pune;
6. गाड- फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER // True Copy // व/र0ठ %नजी स&चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील य अ&धकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune.