""
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" BENCH, MUMBAI
, ,
BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM
./MA No. 342/Mum/2014
(Arising out of ITA No. 457/Mum/2008)
( / Assessment Year: 2004-05)
Viraj Impo Expo Ltd. Dy. CIT,
10, Imperial Chambers, / Central Circle-18 & 19, Mumbai
Wilson Road, Ballard Estate, Vs.
Mumbai-400 038
. / . /PAN/GIR No. AAACV 1939 L
(Applicant) : (Respondent)
./MA No. 343/Mum/2014
(Arising out of ITA No. 458/Mum/2008)
( / Assessment Year: 2003-04)
Viraj Forgings Ltd. / Dy. CIT,
Mumbai-400 038 Central Circle-18 & 19, Mumbai
Vs.
. / . /PAN/GIR No. AAACV 1901 E
(Applicant) : (Respondent)
&
./MA No. 345/Mum/2014
(Arising out of ITA No. 496/Mum/2008)
( / Assessment Years: 2003-04)
Viraj Profiles Ltd. / Dy. CIT,
Mumbai-400 038 Central Circle-18 & 19, Mumbai
Vs.
. / . /PAN/GIR No. AAACV 1940 N
(Applicant) : (Respondent)
Applicants by : Ms. Bhumika Vora
Respondent by : Shri Asghar Zain
2
MA Nos. 342, 343 & 345/M/2014
(A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05)
/ : 12.12.2014
Date of Hearing
/
: 12.12.2014
Date of Pronouncement
/ O R D E R
Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.:
This is a set of three Miscellaneous Applications by three Assessee-appellants,
arising out of the common Order u/s. 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (`the Act'
hereinafter) by the Tribunal dated 12.01.2011 in the captioned appeals for assessment
years (A.Ys.) 2003-04 & 2004-05.
2. The assessee/s has now moved an application stating that its' claim for deduction
u/s.80-HHC was not accepted by the tribunal per the impugned order following the
decision by the hon'ble jurisdictional high court in the case of CIT vs. Kalpataru Colours
& Chemicals [2010] 328 ITR 451 (Bom) [192 Taxman 435]. The said decision has since
been reversed by the apex court vide its judgment in the case of Topman Exports vs. CIT
[2012] 342 ITR 49 (SC) [67 DTR 185]. In view of the same, the tribunals' order bears a
mistake apparent from the record, which is therefore prayed for being rectified u/s.254(2)
of the Act.
3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record.
Even as held by the apex court in the case of Asst. CIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock
Exchange Ltd. [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), as well as by the higher courts, as in the case of
CIT vs. Smt. Aruna Luthra [2001] 252 ITR 76 (P & H)(FB) and B.V.K. Sheshavataram v.
CIT [1994] 210 ITR 633 (AP), even a subsequent decision by the apex court or the
jurisdictional high court would render the decision of the subordinate authority as
mistaken, which could thus be `rectified' in law. The premise of the said decisions is that
a `mistake' can be said to have occurred where the decision being followed or otherwise
adopted by the impugned order is subsequently reversed or held as bad in law by a higher
3
MA Nos. 342, 343 & 345/M/2014
(A.Ys.2003-04 & 2004-05)
binding authority. A decision on a point of law would always relate back to the date of its
enactment, i.e., when it comes in force.
The impugned order was passed by the tribunal on 12.01.2011 and the assessee's
instant application/s has been moved with the tribunal on 15.07.2014, so that it is within
the time period of four years from the date of order u/s.254(1). Accordingly, we have no
hesitation in, conceding the said `mistake', direct, in modification of the findings by the
tribunal per para 3 of its order, the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee deduction
u/s.80-HHC of the Act for the relevant year/s following the decision by the apex court in
the case of Topman Exports (supra). This order shall be read in conjunction with the
impugned order. We decide accordingly.
4. In the result, the assessee's miscellaneous applications are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on December 12, 2014
Sd/- Sd/-
(Joginder Singh) (Sanjay Arora)
/ Judicial Member / Accountant Member
Mumbai; Dated : 12.12.2014
. ../Roshani, Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Applicant
2. / The Respondent
3. () / The CIT(A)
4. / CIT concerned
5. , , / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. / Guard File
/ BY ORDER,
/ (Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
, / ITAT, Mumbai
|
