9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a common order dated 22.08.2014 of this Tribunal, hence, the same are taken together for disposal by this common order. 2. The assessee in its applications have pleaded that a mistake apparent on record has crept in the order dated 22.08.2014 which requires to be rectified and as such the order dated 22.08.2014 is required to be recalled and the matter is required to be restored to the lower authorities for decision afresh. It has been vehemently contended by Shri S.C. Tiwari, Ld. A.R of the assessee, that an arbitration petition was filed before the Hon'ble High Court pursuance to which Smt. KK. Baam. J. (retired) was appointed sole arbitrator to arbitrate in the dispute between M/s. Manoj Hindocha and Mr. Karm Sheel Oberoi, the director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 5 of the order dated 22.08.2014, wherein, his contentions relating to arbitration award have been duly noted by the Tribunal. The said para 5 of the order dated 22.08.14 for the sake of ready reference is reproduced as under: "5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee company was having its registered office in Mumbai and a branch office in Bengaluru. The Mumbai office was looked after by its director Shri Manoj Maganlal Hindocha whereas the Bengaluru branch office had been looked after by Shri Karm Sheel Oberoi. There was a dispute between the directors of the assessee company and because of that the accounts related to the Bengaluru branch office could not be submitted before the A.O. at the time of assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed that under the taxation laws, it is the duty of the assessee to furnish correct details and accounts before the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) and that even the internal dispute between the directors of the company cannot be said to be a ground for not furnishing the proper details, accounts by the assessee company before the AO. It has been further discussed that it was not the directors of the assessee company who were individually responsible for furnishing the accounts of the respective branches of the company under their control but the company as a whole was responsible to furnish the correct details of income/accounts before the AO. After holding so, it was held that in the absence of furnishing of account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue is not concerned with the internal dispute between the directors. A perusal of the assessment order shows that efforts were made and a commission was issued by the A.O. u/s 131(1)(d) to the ACIT Circle 7(1), Bengaluru to collect the details and conduct enquiries in respect of income of assesse's Bengaluru branch office. However, the persons namely Shri Karim Sheel Oberoi and Mrs. Devayani were not found in that area. Under the Taxation Laws, it is the duty of the assessee to furnish correct details and accounts before the A.O. Even the internal dispute between the directors of the company cannot be said to be a ground for not furnishing the proper details/accounts by the assessee company before the A.O. It was not the directors of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rejected. He was requested to point out the specific mistake apparent on the record of the order dated 22.08.2014 so that the same may be rectified, if, it requires so. At this, the Ld. A.R. pointed out that along with the arbitration award, the Ld. A.R. during the hearing on merits had submitted that the matter should be restored to the AO having regard to the arbitration award dated 11.04.13. He has strongly contended that his said principal submission has been overlooked by the Tribunal. Since it was pointed out that when the contention relating to the arbitration award in respect of internal dispute between the directors of the assessee has been rejected itself, there was no question of remanding the matter to the AO on the basis of sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al have time and again depreciated the practice of re-contesting the matter on merits of the case in the garb of the rectification application under section 254(2) of the Act. The Ld. A.R. has not got any right to dictate or contend that why the order has not been passed or relief has not been granted in accordance with his wishes. Since there was no mistake apparent on the record, it was advised to the Ld. A.R. that such type of frivolous applications should be avoided as it not only wastes the precious time of the litigants but also of this Tribunal and also results in financial burden upon the parties. At this, the Ld. A.R. has pointed out that it is the right of the assessee to file applications under the provisions of the Act and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
