Itta/516/2013 Of M/S Nama Hotesl Private Ltd v. Incometax Officer

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.516 of 2013 DATED:30.10.2013 Between:M/s. Nama Hotels Pvt. Ltd.,Hyderabad. … Appellant And Income Tax Officer,Ward 16(2),Hyderabad. ….Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.516 of 2013 Judgment:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar) The assessee is in appeal against the orderdated 8.8.2013 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Hyderabad Bench-B, Hyderabad in M.A. No.125/Hyd/2013. This M.A. was filed under Section 254(2)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) seekingrectification/recall of the order of the Tribunal dated15.3.2013 passed in I.T.A. No. 1761/Hyd/2012. The assessee contended that there was a mistakeapparent from the record in the order of the Tribunalrequiring exercise of power under Section 254(2) of theAct. . Upon due consideration, the Tribunal came tothe conclusion that there was no mistake in its order dated15.3.2013 passed in I.T.A. No. 1761/Hyd/2012 and that the ground alleged by the assessee, in any event, felloutside the scope of the rectification contemplated bySection 254(2) of the Act. Reference was also made todecisions of the jurisdictional High Court in this regard. Holding so, the Tribunal rejected the application filed forrectification of its earlier order. Section 260-A of the Act requires a substantialquestion of law to be raised in the appeal for this Court toentertain and adjudicate the same. In the present case,the finding of the Tribunal that there was no mistake in itsearlier order is purely an issue of fact and does not involvea question of law, much less a substantial question oflaw. Further the substantial question of law sought tobe urged by the assessee in the present appeal is asunder: 1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of thecase, the Tribunal was justified in not considering theissue with regard to the exemption of dividend incomeand set off of business losses when substantialmaterial evidence in respect of the issue is madeavailable on record and also in not following thebinding decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court andsettled propositions from various courts ? The aforestated question has no relationwhatsoever to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunalunder Section 254(2) of the Act and turns upon the meritsof the order in I.T.A. No. 1761/Hyd/2012. In essence, theassessee has not even raised a question of law relatableto the order under appeal. The appeal is therefore devoid of merit and isaccordingly dismissed. _____________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 30.10.2013 PNB