sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 DCIT Circle 2(1) Gurgaon vs Kellog Brown & Roof Engineering & Construction India Pvt. Ltd. 16th Floor, Tower-A, DLF Building, Nos. 5, DLF Cyber Terraces, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon
 Dharam Pal, Garg R Kumar & Associates, 7, Adv. Chambers, RDC, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad vs ITO, Ward-1(2), Ghaziabad
 Satish Singhal, 6, Patpar Road, Shivpuri, New Delhi vs ITO, Ward-11(1), New Delhi
 Vodafone Mobile Services Limited vs. Commissioner Of Service Tax, Delhi
 Anupam Sushil Garg, S/o Shri Vijay Garg, C/o Venus Cinema, Railway Road, Saharanpur. vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2, Saharanpur.
 Oriental Building & Furnishing Co.Ltd. C/o. Ravi Gupta, Advocate E-6A, Kailash Colony New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-13(1) New Delhi.a
 Housing Board Haryana, Panchkula, Haryana
 Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Limited, Multi Location, Multi State
 Ranjana Sen Gupta Raghavan, H-1592, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110019 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-71(2), New Delhi
 M/s Sony India Private Limited A-31 , Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate New Delhi -44 vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax , Circle 24 (1), New Delhi
 Manik Singh S/o. Dr. Meharban Singh, A-47, Sector-31, Noida Uttar Pradesh Noida vs. DCIT Room No. 408, 4th Floor, A- 2D, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-24 Noida

ASTEC Life Sciences Limited, Elite Square, 7th floor, 274, Perin Nariman Street, Mumbai-400001 Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1), Mumbai
January, 21st 2015
                    ,   "" 
     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

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Work Flow Workflow Software Software Automation Workflow automation Software Design Workflow Design Business Work Flow Workflow automation tools

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions