TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 287
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....account of facts are enumerated at paras 'A" to 'O' and errors on account of non-consideration of arguments and evidence led by the department are enumerated at paras 'P' to 'S' below. In addition, it has been found that the DR's written arguments on 33 points were not considered at all. The written arguments on 33 points have been enumerated from page 9 to 57 of this M.A. The above referred factual errors from para 'A" to 'O' are dilated as below: (A) At para 53, the Hon'ble Bench has remarked that the AO himself in the reasons recorded for the A.Y. 1996-97 leads to primary conclusion that even as per the Department the appellant was engaged in jewellery business upto the assessment 1997-98. This attribution to the Department is wrong and misplaced as the reasons recorded are never the findings of the AO but only a premise . A premise can never be a substitute for a factual truth which had been established in the order of the AO that the assessee was not engaged in the business of sale and purchase of jewellery. Therefore, it is mistake to allow an appeal on the basis of mere premise and this mistake falls within the ambit of section 254(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961. (B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lity. (E) At para 58 to 64, the Hon'ble Bench has rejected the DR's claim that the three jewelers, namely, M/s. Hukan Chand Sushil Kumar, M/s. Kapoor Jewellers and M/s. Vinod Jewellers had admitted having received accommodation entries from the assessee. The Hon'ble Bench in support of its holding has reproduced assessee's application u/s 144A at page 46 of its order and missed to reproduce and also take cognizance of the para 7 of the said application which reads as under: Without prejudice, it is humbly submitted that our case was fully comparable with the case of M/s. Vinod Jewellers, Pathankot. In that case, the assessments have been made in the same Circle-2 at Amritsar and he has not been treated as beneficiary regarding jewellery purchased from others and sold to M/s. Vishnu jewelers. Our firm had also not taken any other benefit, except the profit already declared." It may be mentioned that that identical para was incorporated in the application u/s 144A in the case of M/s. Kapoor Jewellery House (Departmental Paper book pages 373 to 390). It may be mentioned here it was pointed out to the Hon'ble Bench that the AO in the case of Sh. Vinod Kumar Prop. M/s. Vishn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dation entries provider can only be ascertained from the case of M/s. Vishnu Jewellers and not from the case of a beneficiary. This argument of the DR has also not been considered by the Hon'ble Bench and it constitute a mistake apparent rectifiable u/s 254(2). (H) At paras 67 to 70, the Hon'ble Bench has committed a grevious mistake in simply going by the false assertion of the assessee that he is engaged in the business of jewellery. The Hon'ble Bench has quoted several statements of the assessee. Had the Tribunal analysed the said statements of the assessee, it would have easily come to the conclusion that the assessee has only been lying. The Hon'ble Tribunal's failure to ascertain the truth from these statements again amount to mistake. It may be mentioned here that it may amount to perverse order if an erroneous view is formed but if the relevant contents of the statements are not considered, it amounts to mistake apparent from record which is rectifiable under section 254(2) of the Act. A close perusal of the versions of the statements of the assessee reveals inherent contradiction which clearly show that the assessee is only lying. In his statement recorded on 13.03.2002....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....humiliated when factual matrix is totally to the contrary which he has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not mentioned even a single syllable of the DR's arguments on this point. (K) At paras 81 to 87, the Hon'ble Bench has committed a mistake in placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KTM M. Mohd vs. UOI 197 ITR 196 as the statements were recorded by the Deputy Director of Income (Investigation) who is a gazetted office. The Hon'ble Bench further committed an error when in view of the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. VKL Jolly & Sons (supra) Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pyramid Software & Technologies and Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mukind V Kapadia (supra), it held that the statements recorded by DDIT(Inv.) were invalid. He was gazetted officer and thus competent to record the statements. The Hon'ble Tribunal further erred in not dealing with the argument of the DR that the words "referred to in sub-s(1) of S.132 before he takes action u/s clause (i) to (v) of that sub-section in section 131(1A) do not qualify the words- Director General, Director, J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee subsequently. The Tribunal only mentioned but did not consider the DR's argument that the assessee had refused to cross-examine the two brokers and thus it proves that the assessee was engaged in any such business and has, thus, committed a mistake. (M) At page 92, the Hon'ble Bench has not dealt with the arguments of the DR that it was not sheer coincidence that both Sh. Rishi Grover and Sh. Raj Kumar of M/s. Nayyar Jewellers should have identical facts. Without considering the said arguments as augmented with the documentary evidence from pages 59 to 109 of the departmental paper book, the Tribunal's deciding the issue against the revenue, is clearly a mistake which falls within the purview of section 254(2) of the Act. (N) At para 97 to 102, the Tribunal has rejected the claim of the DR that the letters dated 13.2.2006 and 22.2.2006 were planted/inserted in the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal has not dealt with the arguments of the DR advanced in this regard. The Ld. DR argued that both the documents were neither finding any mentioned in the order sheets maintained in the office of the CIT(A) and nor these documents contained the signatures of the worthy C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent that during the previous year ending on 31.3.2001, he was having salary as his source of income. (Q) The Hon'ble Bench has not considered documents at page No.236 of the departmental paper book which is a letter sent by Sh. Kapil Kumar,CA counsel for the assessee which blows to the smithereens the whole cock and bull story of coercion and pressure brought upon the assessee and wrongly accepted by the Tribunal. In this letter, Sh. Kapil Kumar informs that Sh. Rishi Grover suffered acute chest pain on 6.1.2003 at 7 PM and had been hospitalized and was under medical treatment at Medical Unit 1, Guru Nanak Dev Hospital, Amritsar and further requested that he may be permitted to attend the office till he relieve from Hospital. Thereafter, he attends the office on 16.1.2003 and then on 17.1.2003 on his own volition. The Tribunal did not consider the DR's argument that he had really been coereced on 16.1.2003 then why did he come to office again on 17.1.2003. Non-consideration of these vital arguments/evidence constitute a mistake within the ambit of section 254(2) of the Act. (R) It was argued before the Hon'ble Bench that there has been no genuine purchase purchase and sale of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the DDIT while recording the statement of the appellant, which is evident from letter dated 8th June, 2003 filed by Mr. Kapil Kumar and Company requesting for persons after few days. 7 & 9 The statements of Sh. Yudhvir and Sh. Sushil Kumar have been relied upon. 8. Statements of Sanjay Kumar have been relied upon. 10 Statements of Sanjay Grover brother of the appellant have been relied upon. 11. Statements of Sh. Jatinder Anand Vikas Seth and Sh. Ashok Kumar have been relied upon. 12. Reference has been made to the transactions with M/s. Baba Naga Rice Mills. 13. Reference is made to the complaint in the form of resolution filed by Amritsar jewelers Association to the higher authorities alleging high handedness by the Income Tax Department. Reference is also made to subsequent retraction by Sh. Sudhir Kapoor and Satish Kapoor. 14. Reference has been made to bank statement of the appellant wherein cash has been deposited. 15 & 16 Reference has again been made to bullion trade with State Bank of India. Further reference has been made to statement of various persons and bill books having been found from the office of M/s. Umat & Company. 17. It is alleged t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....finding the Tribunal's finding cannot be sustained. Thus, it is clear that the Tribunal's not giving its finding whether Sh. Rishi Grover had purchased the same jewellery which several sellers had declared under the VDIS and Sh. Rishi Grover had sold the same, constitutes a mistake in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court (supra). In view of the above, it is submitted that the MA already been filed by the Department may kindly be treated as revised to the extent of inclusion of the aforesaid mistake in the said MA" 5. Mr. Tarsem Lal, the ld DCIT (DR) with regard to Revenue's application from pages 1 to 9 in points 'A' to 'S', invited our attention to various pages/paras of the order of the ITAT dated 26.06.2009 i.e. pages/paras 38,39,54, 55,56, 57, 58, 62, 64, 66, 67 to 70, 71 to 75, 76 to 80, 81 to 87, 85, 88, 92, 97 to 102, 104 to 107 with reference to the mistakes as pointed out in its application at pages 1 to 9 in point 'A' to 'S' and argued that there are factual errors, errors on account of non-consideration of the arguments and evidence led by the department and therefore, whole order of the Tribunal should be recalled. 5.1 As regards the revise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the miscellaneous application. The allegation of the Revenue that Hon'ble Bench has not considered statement dated 6.1.2003 is thus factually incorrect. C In para 55, the Hon'ble Bench has taken into consideration the entire facts and the arguments advanced by both the sides. The Hon'ble Tribunal has taken into consideration notices/intimation placed in the paper book and also the contention of the Revenue that such notices may have been received by the appellant personally. After taking into consideration the entire material, the Tribunal had come to definite conclusion that the appellant had actually taken the shop on rent. Such conclusion has been arrived at on the basis of entirely of the facts, including statements of various persons referred in the earlier para. The allegation of the Revenue that the Tribunal has not considered the fact that dispatch register was produced is, thus, grossly misplaced, particularly when the argument addressed by the Revenue on the basis of the said dispatch register was very much considered by the Tribunal. D The contention of the Revenue is, in our respectful submission, nothing short of finding fault in the final conclusion ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....native submission of the jewelers, as is evident from the fact that the said para begins with the phrase "Without Prejudice". Reliance placed by the Revenue, in the present miscellaneous application, on the assessment orders passed in the case of Vinod Jewellers is also grossly misplaced since the said order has also been considered in paras 58 to 60 of the order of the Tribunal. F The assessee fails to appreciate as to how despite the fact that the Tribunal, in para 64 of the order, has elaborately dealt with the assessment order passed in the case of M/s. Vinod Jewellers, it could even be alleged by the Revenue that the Tribunal has not considered any particular fact. On a carefully perusal of the contention of the Revenue, it is noticed that the Revenue is, in fact, again trying to dictate the conclusion that the Tribunal ought to have arrived at. In doing so, the Revenue has, in fact, contended that the Tribunal had come to a wrong conclusion, which clearly shows complete disrespect to the binding order of the Tribunal. The assessee fails to appreciate as to how such contention can even be raised in the miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) of the Act. The said pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ajan Kumar, the so called counsel of the appellant, ha been considered in para 36 of the order of the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid, the contention of the Revenue that certain facts have not been taken cognizance of by the Tribunal is factually incorrect. It may also be pertinent to mention here that the Tribunal in paras 71 to 75 have not only elaborately dealt with all the statements of the appellant, but also considered the then prevailing circumstances, retractions filed by the appellant etc. to come to a finding/conclusion. The Revenue is merely trying to challenge the conclusion/finding of the Tribunal, which is clearly not permissible within the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. J Again, the Revenue has shown gross disrespect to the binding order of the Tribunal by seeking to challenge the conclusion/finding of the Tribunal in the guise of miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble Tribunal has first recorded the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant. In paras 17 to 32 the Tribunal has extensively referred to the various arguments addressed ton behalf of the Revenue. Thereafter, the Tribunal has dealt with the arguments adva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tention of the Revenue that the order of the Tribunal was not intelligble'betrays a regrettable lack of candour'. The aforesaid decision is equally applicable and directly deals with the unacceptable contentions being canvassed on behalf of the Revenue, in clear/gross violation of principles of judicial hierarch/propriety/discipline. M. In para 92 the Hon'ble Tribunal has specifically rejected the contention of the Revenue that the facts relating to an altogether different assessee cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the case of the appellant. The Revenue is, in the miscellaneous application, indirectly seeking to suggest (intact direct) that the Tribunal should have considered the facts relating to M/s. Nayyar Jewellers and should not have rejected the said argument of the Revenue. Again there is clear attempt on the part of the Revenue in violating all the canons of principles of judicial hierarchy/propriety/discipline. There is clearly no mistake in the order of the Tribunal requiring rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act. N. The Revenue has again challenged the correctness of the finding/conclusion of the Tribunal. As elaborately discussed supra, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctfully submitted, totally misplaced/fallacious. R. The additional evidences filed by the department vide Sl. No.69 of the departmental paper book (pages 399 to 400) were admitted by the Hon'ble Bench and duly taken into consideration while adjudicating the appeal. The arguments of the Department were also rebutted by the appellant in the submissions filed before the Bench. Reference to the said evidences and the arguments based on the said evidences have been incorporated in paras 6 and 24 of the Tribunal's order. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contention of the Revenue that the evidences filed and the argument raised have not been considered is, it is respectfully submitted, factually incorrect. S. The Hon'ble Tribunal had, vide separate order dated 27.5.2009, admitted the additional grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant. In the said order, the Tribunal has elaborately dealt with the arguments addressed on behalf of both the sides. The argument of the Department that the matter should be referred back to the lower authorities was specifically considered and rejected by the Hon'ble Tribunal. Reference, in this regard, may be made to para 17 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s statements of the appellant have been elaborately considered in paras 67 to 75 of the order. 21. These statements have been dealt with by the Tribunal in paras 88(c) and 88(g) of the order. 22. Statements of various persons have been dealt with in various paras of the order, particularly para 88 of the order. Issue of duplicate bill book and alleged discrepancies in the bills have also been considered in paras 39, 93 and 94 of the order. 23. This statement nowhere supports the case of the Revenue, The exact grievance of the Revenue has not been stated. 24. Issue of bullion trade with State Bank of India has been elaborately dealt with in paras 23, 32, 38, 96 to 101 of the order. 25. This issue has been discussed in paras 22, 25 and 94 of the order. 26 & 27 This issue/aspect has been considered in paras 52 and 53 of the order. 28. Statements of the appellant and subsequent retraction have been elaborately considered in paras 67 to 75 of the order. 29. Same as point Nos. 26 & 27. 30. The fact that there was an inadvertent error in typing the name of the mother of the appellant was pointed out by the appellant in its reply filed before the Tribunal. Suc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted, is factually incorrect. The grievance of the Revenue, it appears, is based on the fact that the Tribunal has not reproduced the entire written submission filed on behalf of the Department in the final order passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal. In the respectful submission of the appellant, nonproduction of the entire written submissions filed by either of the parties in the final order passed by the Tribunal cannot be the basis for seeking a recall/review of the detailed order passed by the Tribunal." 9. It was argued by the ld. counsel for the assessee that in the above miscellaneous application, the Revenue has taken the following grounds for seeking review and recall of the order passed by the Tribunal: (a) Alleged factual errors set out in paras A to O on pages 1 to 8 of the application. (b) Alleged non-consideration of arguments and evidences set out in paras P to S on pages 8 and 9 of the application. (c) Non-consideration of arguments and evidences, being 33 points set out on pages 9 to 57 of the application. 9.1. It was further submitted that the contentions raised in the miscellaneous application preferred by the Revenue are not only factually ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchase of jewllery and therefore, the said decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, cannot be the basis of mistake apparent from record in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the Ld. counsel for the assessee prayed that there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the ITAT dated 26.06.2009 and for the submissions and arguments made hereinabove and in the written submissions, the Revenue, in fact, is trying to get the order reviewed under the garb of Miscellaneous Application which is not permitted under section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, the said Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue be rejected in view of the arguments and submissions made and the decisions of various courts of law relied upon hereinabove. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. It was argued by the Ld. DCIT(DR), Mr. Tarsem Lal that in point 'A' to 'S' in Revenue's application at pages 1 to 9, there are factual errors, errors on account of non-consideration of the arguments and evidence led by the Department. The errors on account of facts are enumerated at para "A" to "O" and errors on account of non-consideration of arguments and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he dispatch register before the ITAT to show that no notice or intimations were sent by post as claimed by the assessee. The ITAT has not brought this fact on record. In this regard, the ITAT has taken into consideration the entire facts of the matter and contentions of the Revenue that such notices might have been received by the assessee personally and the assessee had actually taken the shop on rent based on the totality of the facts and statements of various persons referred in earlier paras. The Tribunal has considered the said facts of dispatch register and other facts in totality and has come to the conclusion and therefore, we find no mistake apparent from record in the said para 55 of the Tribunal's order. The Ld. DR's contention to get the order reviewed, is outside the scope of section 254(2) of the Act Hence, the same is rejected. (d) As regards paras 56,57 & 58 of ITAT order, the Ld. DCIT(DR), Mr. Tarsem Lal appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the ITAT in the said paras had gone by the facts that the Sales Tax Authorities had accepted the claim of the assessee that the assessee is engaged in the sale and purchase of jewellery. The Tribunal has not cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the Ld. DR in the application of the Revenue in paras 58 to 64 of the order of the Tribunal is rejected. (f) In point 'F' of the Miscellaneous Application, the Ld. DR has pointed out a mistake in para 64 of the Tribunal that the ITAT has gone by the false statement of Sh. Vinod Kumar and has not taken cognizance of the fact that the AO had held him to be only a conduit for getting accommodation entries from M/s. Vishnu Jewellers. It was argued that the finding of the AO has become final and this has left no room with the Tribunal to hold that Sh. Vinod Kumar's statement was true that the assessee was engaged in the jewellery business. This application of the Revenue and argument of the Ld. DCIT(DR), Mr. Tarsem Lal, cannot be accepted that any finding of the AO becomes final and there is no room for any higher court including the Tribunal to hold that Sh. Vinod Kumar's statement was true and the assessee was engaged in the jewellery business. Whereas in para 64 of ITAT order, the assessment order passed in the case of M/s. Vinod jewelers has been dealt in detail. It appears that the ld. DCIT(DR), Mr. Tarsem Lal, requires the Bench to re-write and review the order, which is be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the case of the Revenue that no statement of the assessee has been considered. The statements dated 13.02.2002 and 11.11.2003 referred to in the application of Revenue have been dealt with in ITAT's order in paras 67 & 68. Therefore, the Tribunal has in its wisdom by considering the totality of the facts and the statements etc. have come to the conclusion in the said paras and we find no mistake in the said paras 67 to 70 of ITAT's order. The miscellaneous application of the Revenue and the arguments of the Ld. DCIT(DR), Mr. Tarsem Lal using the words " that the ITAT has failed to ascertain the truth, that the order is perverse and there is erroneous view formed, are outside the scope of section 254(2) of the Act and such dictate should be avoided and cannot be subject matter of the argument by the Ld. DCIT(DR), Mr. Tarsem Lal in his arguments in application u/s 254(2) of the Act. In the facts and circumstances, we find no mistake apparent from record in paras 67 to 70 u/s 254(2) of the Act. Thus, the miscellaneous application of the Revenue in this regard is rejected. (i) As regards paras 71 to 75 of the order of the ITAT, the Ld. DCIT(DR), Mr. Tarsem Lal, appearing for the R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that he was harassed and humiliated when factual matrix is contrary and it constitutes a mistake apparent from record. In this regard, the Ld. DR has challenged the order of the ITAT under the garb of miscellaneous application u/s 254(2) of the Act, which is out side the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. The ITAT has recorded the arguments advanced on behalf of the assessee in paras 17 to 32 of its order. The ITAT has referred to various arguments addressed on behalf of the Revenue and thereafter arguments by both sides from para 67 and thereafter the arguments of both the sides were considered by the ITAT and in the totality of the facts and circumstances before the Bench and the legal position as emanating from the decisions of various judicial precedents had applied the legal position to the facts of the case before the Tribunal. In this regard, we find no mistake apparent from the records u/s 254(2) of the Act and the application of the Revenue with regard to paras 76 to 80 is rejected. (k) In point 'K' of the miscellaneous application with regard to paras 81 to 87, the Ld. DR, Mr. Tarsem Lal pointed out that the Gazetted Officer like DDIT (Investigation), who had recor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hi Grover and Sh, Raj Kumar should have identical facts and it is a mistake apparent from record. In this regard, the ITAT has specifically rejected the contention of the Revenue that the facts relating to different assessees cannot be taken into consideration, while deciding the case of the assessee. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, we find no mistake apparent from record in the application in point 'M' of the Revenue.The same is rejected. (n) In point 'N' of the miscellaneous application with regard to paras 97 to 102, it was pointed out by the Ld. DR that the Tribunal has not dealt with the arguments of the ld. DR with regard to the letters dated 13.2.2006 and 22.2.2006. In this regard, the ITAT in para 102 has noticed that the letters mentioned by the Revenue were very much filed before the ld. CIT(A). The ITAT by considering the totality of the facts of the said letters have decided the issue. We find no mistake apparent from record in the said paras 97 to 102 in the order of the Tribunal. The mistake pointed out in point 'N' of the miscellaneous application of the Revenue is thus rejected. (o) As regards point 'O' of the miscellaneous application of the Rev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mistake apparent from record. In this regard, the ITAT has dealt with the statements of the assessee, the prevailing circumstances at that time and after taking into consideration all the facts like complaint filed before the CBDT against Income Tax Department for being exerting the pressure, the decision had been taken by the Tribunal. As regards the letter sent by Sh. Kapil Kumar, CA, which is mere information, who was seeking time for appearance does not effect the decision of the Revenue, which has been taken as mentioned hereinabove, after considering the totality of the facts and various other circumstances. Accordingly, we find no mistake as pointed out by the Revenue in point 'Q' of its application. Thus, the same is rejected. (r) As regards point 'R' of the miscellaneous application of the Revenue, it was argued by the ld. DCIT(DR) before the ITAT that there has not been genuine purchase and sale of jewellery as jewellery had been bought and sold which was inconsistent with the prevailing market rates. A copy of market rates for Gold and Silver was filed at pages 399 to 400 of the Departmental paper book. In this regard, additional evidences filed by the Departmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l's order. iv) As regards point-4 with regard to bills of the State Bank of India, the same has been considered by the Tribunal in paras 32, 38 and 97 to 102 of its order. v) As regards point-5, with regard to description of jewellery contained in bills issued by M/s. Vinod Jewellers, the said description has been considered in paras 24, 34 and 58 to 65 of the Tribunal's order. vi) As regards point-6 with regards to threat or coercion has been considered in paras 67 to 75 of ITAT's order. vii) As regards points-7 & 9 with regard to the statements of Sh. Yudhivir and Sh. Sushil Kumar, the same have been considered in paras 28 and 88(h) of the ITAT's order. viii) As regards point-8 with regard to the statements of Sh. Satish Kumar, the same have been considered in paras 27,31, 36 and 58 to 65 of the Tribunal's order. ix) As regards point-10 with regard to the statements of Sanjay Grover brother of the assessee, the same have been considered in paras 11, 23 and 69 to 70 of the Tribunal's order. x) As regards point-11 with regard to the statements of Sh. Jatinder Anand, Vikash Seth and Sh. Ashok Kumar, the same have been considered in paras 20,54, 88(a), 88(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gard to retraction filed by the assessee before the Income-tax authorities, the same has been considered in paras 67 to 75 of ITAT's order. xxv) As regards point-29, with regard to dropping of proceedings by the Department for certain assessment years, the same has been considered by the Tribunal in para 52 & 53 of its order. xxvi) As regards point-30 with regard to inadvertent mistake in recording name of mother of the assessee in the affidavit filed before the Income-tax authorities, in this regard, there was an inadvertent error in typing the name of the mother of the appellant as pointed out by the appellant in its reply filed before the Tribunal. This stand by the Department at this juncture for filing the affidavit or not filing the affidavit does not constitute a mistake apparent from record. xxvii) As regards point-31 with regard to delivery of correspondences at the address of the assessee, the same has been dealt with in paras 32 and 55 of the Tribunal's order. xxviii) As regards point-32 with regard to the reply to the submissions filed on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal, nothing has been pointed out by the Revenue on the issue which has not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order, as was the intention of the Ld. DCIT(DR), Mr. Tarsem Lal, in the present application, who had been pointing out the fault in understanding the facts of the case by the ITAT and wanted the order to be re-written. Each and every mistake pointed out by the Ld. DCIT(DR), Mr. Tarsem Lal was capable of full debate and in long drawn process which is not permitted in law as held and fortified by the decisions of various courts of law relied upon as under: i) Deva Metal Powders Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner Trade Tax U.P.(2008) 2 SCC 439 SC). ii) CIT vs. Vardhman Spinning 226 ITR 296 (P&H) iii) Uplaskhsh Metal Industries vs. CIT 309 ITR 61 iv) CIT vs. Pearl Woollen Mills ITR No.187 of 1998 (P&H) v) H.B. Leasing and Finance Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 163 Taxman 143 (Delhi). vi) Asia Resorts Limited vs. CIT 245 CTR 276. vii) K.K. Ravindran (Decd. By Lrs) v. ITAT & Anrs. 332 ITR 569. 13. In the circumstances and facts of the case, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue is clearly outside the scope and ambit of the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act and there is no factual error found in the said order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar, dated 26th June, 200....