TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal cannot review its own decision unless it is permitted to do so by the statute. The Hon ble Supreme Court has held in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji [ 1970 (3) TMI 163 - SUPREME COURT] that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. It is a settled law that the Tribunal has no power to review its order in the garb of section 254(2) of the Act - M.A. No. 134/Mum/2019 (ITA No. 135/MUM/2016) And M.A. No. 135/Mum/2019 (ITA No. 136/MUM/2016) - - - Dated:- 23-7-2019 - Shri C.N. Prasad (Judicial Member) And Shri N.K. Pradhan (Accountant Member) For the Assessee : Mr.PareshShaparia, AR For the Revenue : Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM By means of these Miscellaneous Applications (MA), the applicant seeks recall of the order dated 21.08.2018 passed by the ITAT H Bench Mumbai (ITA Nos. 135/Mum/2016) for the assessment years (AY) 2006-07 (ITA Nos. 136 /Mum/2016) for AY 2008-09. In Part-I, herein- below, we mention the contentions of the Ld. counsel fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tency of the appellant ought to have been followed considering the facts that in appellant s own case, with identical facts of repetitive transactions, the income from sale of shares have been treated as capital gains and not business income namely (i) AY 2007- 08 : (a) order u/s 143(3) dated 16.12.2009 passed by the Assessing Officer accepting the STCG with repetitive transactions as Capital Gains , (b) order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.03.2014 passed by the same Assessing Officer treating the STCG as business income . The CIT(A) allowed the appeal and the Department appeal was dismissed by the ITAT, (ii) AY 2010-11 : order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.03.2014 passed by the same Assessing Officer, (iii) AY 2011-12 : order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) dated 30.03.2014 passed by the same Assessing Officer. Thus it is stated that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that in appellant s own case, having STCG with repetitive transactions in other assessment years have been accepted as STCG and also ought to have followed various Supreme Court judicial pronouncements on the principle of uniformity and consistency. Finally, it is stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 23.12.2005 -62534 4 Bharati Shipyard 9000 11.11.2005 23.12.2005 173056 5. Bharati Shipyard 3000 11.11.2005 31.01.2006 165405 6 Sah Petro 45496 04.08.2005 04.08.2005 7632 7 Sah Petro 323 05.08.2005 09.08.2005 147 8 Sah Petro 11227 08.08.2005 09.08.2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .05.2007 5,636 4. Great Offshore Ltd 50 29.05.2007 18.06.2007 3639 5 Great Offshore Ltd. 200 30.05.2007 27.06.2007 12,267 6 Great Offshore Ltd. 800 30.06.2007 06.09.2007 55,524 7 Orbitco 2000 25.04 2007 30.05.2007 131,064 e Orbitco 1000 25.04.2007 22.06.2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 64,306 19 K.S Oils Ltd. 5000 01.11.2007 28.12.2007 83,260 20 K.S Oils Ltd. 10000 01.11.2007 27.12.2007 191,499 As the transactions of sale/purchase made by the assessee in the above scripts are repetitive in nature, we confirmed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) treating the amount of ₹ 21,80,288/- as business income. However, we directed the AO to allow the related business expenses on the above income. 4.1 A perusal of the above facts clearly indicate that the applicant has not pointed out any mistake apparent from the record. A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious mistake and not something which can be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. A decision on a debatable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
