Tribunal rejects rectification requests on section 80IB deduction, citing time-barred arguments.

The Tribunal dismissed all six Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification of an order dated 18.06.2018, which raised issues regarding deduction under section 80IB. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's contentions, stating that the original order was based on a thorough consideration of evidence. Despite arguments for a recall based on alleged errors, the Tribunal upheld its previous decision, emphasizing that the new contentions were time-barred and inapplicable.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of order dated 18.06.2018 passed in the appeals, errors in the order, eligibility of deduction under section 80IB, consideration of evidence on record, recall of the order, new contentions raised by the assessee, applicability of relevant case laws.

Analysis:

1. The assessee filed six Miscellaneous Applications seeking rectification in the order dated 18.06.2018 passed in the appeals. The applications raised common grievances, and with the consent of parties, all were heard together. The lead case was MA No.174/AHD/2017 for A.Y. 2005-06. The applicant pointed out errors in the order, specifically related to the deduction under section 80IB, citing factual inaccuracies in the Tribunal's decision.

2. The Learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee argued that the order was erroneous and should be recalled. The AR highlighted that the Tribunal's observations regarding the unsigned Audit Report and lack of evidence for manufacturing activities were factually incorrect. The AR presented various documents supporting the commencement of manufacturing activities from 28.03.2004, which were duly considered by the Assessing Officer.

3. On the contrary, the Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue supported the Tribunal's order, stating that there was no mistake apparent on record justifying a recall. The DR contended that the Tribunal had considered all evidence provided by the assessee and that the new contentions raised by the AR were time-barred and not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act.

4. The Tribunal deliberated on the contentions of both parties and reviewed the order passed by its predecessor on 17.02.2017. The Tribunal noted that the predecessor had considered all evidence and passed a plausible order. The AR failed to demonstrate any mistake apparent on record, and the case laws cited were deemed inapplicable due to the differing factual contexts.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, as it found no merit in interfering with the previous order. The dismissal applied to all six applications filed by the assessee, as they were based on similar grounds and arguments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld its previous decision, emphasizing that the order was based on a thorough consideration of the facts and evidence presented. The applications for rectification were dismissed, and the original order stood.

---