9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 780 - AT - Income TaxRectification application - Hon ble Bench applied the profit rate of 38.23 % to gross purchase while the profit rate on gross purchase calculated by the CIT(A) was 27.66 % - loss to the revenue as the income determined after giving appeal effect to the order of the ITAT is lower than the income declared in return by the assessee - HELD THAT - In argument the revenue let to inform that the rectification was required to relate this order of the ITAT Amritsar Bench. But the ITAT Amritsar Bench has passed the speaking order in this issue. The recalling the observation of a speaking order of ITAT is beyond the jurisdiction of Bench. So the MA application of the revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
The judgment involves a Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue against the order of ITAT, Amritsar Bench, regarding ITA No. 513/Asr/2017 for A.Y. 2013-14. The revenue raised concerns about miscalculations leading to revenue loss, specifically related to the application of profit rates on gross purchase instead of net purchase, resulting in lower profits determined by ITAT compared to the assessee's declarations for A.Y. 2008-09, 2012-13, and 2013-14. Application of Profit Rates: The revenue contended that the ITAT's application of profit rates to gross purchase instead of net purchase led to lower profits determined, causing revenue loss. The discrepancies in profit calculations for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2012-13, where ITAT's declared gross profit was lower than the assessee's declaration, highlighted the impact of this error. Similarly, for A.Y. 2013-14, the ITAT's declared gross profit was significantly lower than the assessee's declaration, indicating consistent underestimation of profits due to the incorrect application of profit rates. Jurisdictional Bench's Precedents: The ITAT, in its earlier order, had considered and followed judgments of the jurisdictional Bench, leading to logical conclusions based on established precedents. The ITAT emphasized that when there are judgments by the jurisdictional Bench on identical issues, the CIT(A) is not obligated to follow different reasoning or orders contrary to those passed by the jurisdictional Bench. This approach ensured that the ITAT's order did not suffer from perversity, impropriety, or illegality, warranting the dismissal of the Revenue Department's appeal. Legal Observations and Dismissal: During the proceedings, the revenue sought rectification of the ITAT's order, citing observations from the Honorable Jurisdictional High Court and the Honorable Apex Court. The courts emphasized the limitations of the Appellate Tribunal's powers under section 254(2) to rectify mistakes apparent from the record, without the authority to review or revise orders. The ITAT's decision to recall a speaking order was deemed beyond its jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the revenue's Miscellaneous Application 8/Asr/2021. The judgment reaffirmed that the ITAT's powers are limited to correcting mistakes evident from the record, without exceeding the scope granted by the relevant legal provisions. Conclusion: Ultimately, the ITAT's order stood, emphasizing adherence to established precedents and legal boundaries governing the Appellate Tribunal's powers. The dismissal of the revenue's Miscellaneous Application underscored the importance of respecting jurisdictional precedents and the statutory limitations on the Tribunal's authority to rectify orders.
|
