TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amaraju Surgical Cotton Mills [2007 (8) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. - That is the decision which is directly relevant to the appeals considered by the Tribunal through its common order. - That decision has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT) has held that a patent, manifest and self-evident error which does not require elaborate discussion of evidence or arguments to establish it, can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and can be corrected while exercising certiorari jurisdiction. Non-consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of CIT vs. Ramaraju Surgical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 2007-08 in ITA No. 345/Mds/2011. The assessee had also further filed four cross objections corresponding to the appeals filed by the Revenue in CO Nos.46, 47, 48 49/Mds/2011. All these appeals and cross objections totalling to eleven files were heard by the Tribunal together and disposed of through its common order dated 25th August, 2011. It is in the above common order passed by the Tribunal, that the assessee-petitioner states that the mistake is apparent. It is because of the above stated eleven files relating to appeals, cross appeals and cross objections that the assessee has now filed eleven rectification petitions before us. 3. The assessee-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing heavy chemicals. The assessee-com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of the Assessing Officer was restored. In assessee s appeal on the question of Membrane and Cell Elements, the Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities that they were capital expenditure. Ultimately, the appeals filed by the Revenue were allowed whereas the appeals as well as the cross objections filed by the assessee were dismissed. 7. As already stated, these miscellaneous petitions, in the nature of rectification petitions, have been filed in the above context. 8. Shri S. Sridhar, the learned counsel appearing for the assessee-petitioner contended that the assessee had claimed its expenditure as deduction not under sec.31 as current repairs but under sec.37 as revenue expenditure . The decision of the Hon ble Supre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal has committed an error which is apparent from the records. 10. The learned counsel further relied on a recent judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (305 ITR 227) wherein the Court has held that failure to apply judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court is a mistake apparent on record and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to rectify such mistake. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the above decision, non-consideration of the binding decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills (294 ITR 328) is a mistake apparent from the records and this Tribunal is competent to rectify the said mistake. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear that the assessee has nowhere raised the question of deducting its expenditure as current repairs . Therefore, it is clear that sec.31 does not have application on the issue raised by the assessee before the assessing authority. But rather the Tribunal rejected the claim of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. (293 ITR 201) which, in fact, is not directly applicable to the assessee. 13. In fact, the assessee had claimed expenditure as revenue expenditure under sec.37. The question of revenue expenditure deductible under sec.37 has been considered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills [294 ITR 328]. That i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the case of CIT vs. Ramaraju Surgical Mills [294 ITR 328] has held that sec.31 and 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 operate in different spheres and the tests applicable to sec.31 cannot be read into sec.37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As the assessee has sought deduction under sec.37 in its appeals, the assessing authority ought to have examined the deductibility of replacement expenditure within the ambit of sec.37. When that is the correct course of action, the assessing authority has erred in relying on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Saravana Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. [ 293 ITR 201] where the scope of sec.31 alone was appreciated by the Hon ble Apex Court. On the other hand, it is in the case of CIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
