, ""
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND VIVEK VARMA, (JM)
.. , ,
Miscellaneous Application No.395/Mum/2014
(Arising out of ./I.T.A. No.7028/Mum/2012)
( / Assessment Year:2007-08)
ASTEC Life Sciences Limited, / Asstt. Commissioner of Income
Elite Square, 7th floor, Vs. Tax 2(1), Mumbai
274, Perin Nariman Street,
Mumbai-400001
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
. / . /PAN/GIR No. :AAACA4832D
/ Appellant by S/Shri Ashwin S Chhag
/Respondent by Shri Jeetendra Kumar
/ Date of Hearing
: 16.1.2015
/Date of Pronouncement :16.1.2015
/ O R D E R
Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:
The assessee has filed this Miscellaneous Petition on the ground that
the order dated 27.8.2014 passed by the Tribunal in the assessee's case
requires modification.
2. The ld. AR appearing for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal
has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee confirming the order of ld.
CIT(A) in refusing to condone the delay. The Ld. AR further submitted that
the Tribunal has not taken into account the factual details in the proper
perspective and the Tribunal has also not followed the decisions rendered
by the Supreme Court and the decisions of various High Courts in this
MA 395/M/2014
2
regard. He further submitted that non consideration of the decision of
Apex Court and the Jurisdictional High Court can said to be a mistake
apparent from record as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of ACIT V/s Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Limited (2008) 173
Taxmann 322(SC). Accordingly, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee
had quoted many decisions at the time of hearing and the Tribunal has
failed to consider them. Accordingly, he prayed that the impugn order
may kindly be recalled.
3. On the contrary, the ld. DR submitted that the Tribunal, u/s 254(2)
of the Act, has only limited powers, i.e., it can rectify only mistakes
apparent from record. The ld. DR further submitted that the Tribunal has
properly considered the factual details available on record and accordingly
concluded that the assessee has failed to show a reasonable cause for the
delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, he submitted
that there is no mistake apparent from record. The assessee has failed to
point out any specific mistake apparent from record, which needs to be
rectified by the Tribunal and hence this petition should not be entertained.
4. We have heard the parties and perused the record. As submitted by
the ld. DR, the powers of the Tribunal u/s 254(2) of the Act is limited,
i.e., it can only correct the mistakes apparent from record. The Tribunal
does not have power to review its own order. We notice that the
assessee, in this petition, has pointed out the factual details relating to
demand of tax etc and also cited case laws which are relevant to the
issue relating to condonation of delay. However, the perusal of the order
of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal has considered the
explanations furnished by the assessee with regard to the delay in filing
the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) in paras 9 and 10 of the order.
Admittedly, the assessee did not dispute the factual details noted down by
MA 395/M/2014
3
the Tribunal. Instead the assessee is again narrating certain events which
were not relevant for the matter of condonation of delay. The
consideration of these facts might possibly be led to review of the
impugned order which the Tribunal is not empowered to do. Under these
set of facts, we do not find any merit in the MA filed by the assessee.
5. In the result, the MA filed by the assessee is dismissed.
The above order was pronounced in the open court on 16.1.2015
th
16 Jan,2015
sd sd
( / VIVEK VARMA) (.. / B.R. BASKARAN)
/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai: 16th Jan, 2015.
. ../ SRL , Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. / CIT concerned
5. , , /
DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
true copy
(Asstt. Registrar)
, /ITAT, Mumbai
|
