M/s. Ganga Singh Engineers,, Jalandhar v. The Income-tax Officer,, Jalandhar

MA 11/ASR/2013 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2016 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1120924 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AAFFG5483N
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number MA 11/ASR/2013
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Ganga Singh Engineers,, Jalandhar
Respondent The Income-tax Officer,, Jalandhar
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 18-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 18-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 14-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 14-10-2016
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 10-01-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K. CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NOS.7 8 9 10(ASR)/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 474 475 476 & 477(ASR)/201 3) ASSESSMENT YEARS:1998-99 TO 2001-02 PAN : AAFFG5483N M/S. GANGA SINGH & SONS VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (MANUFACTURERS) JALANDHAR. WARD 2(1) JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) MA NOS.11 12 13 & 14(ASR)/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 477 TO 481(ASR)/2013) ASSESSMENT YEARS:1998-99 TO 2001-02 PAN : AAFFG9543D M/S. GANGA SINGH (ENGINEERS) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICE R JALANDHAR. WARD 2(1) JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) MA NOS.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 482 & 483(ASR)/2013) ASSESSMENT YEARS:2000-01 & 2001-02 PAN : AAEFG4784B M/S. GANGA SINGH & SONS VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER JALANDHAR. WARD 2(1) JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY: SH.M.R. BHAGAT RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN DR DATE OF HEARING: 14/10/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/10/2016 MA NOS.7 TO 10(ASR)/2013 `` MA NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 MA NO.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 2 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR AM: THIS IS A BUNCH OF TEN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL DATED 08.11.2012. THE GRIEVANCES RAISED IN THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS A RE COMMON AND THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THROUGH THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDAT ED ORDER. 2. THE LD. AR FIRST TOOK UP MISC. APPLICATIONS IN T HE CASE OF M/S. GANGA SINGH & SONS (MANUFACTURERS) JALANDHAR. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE NUMBER OF MISTAKES IN THE IMPUGNED O RDER DATED 08.11.2012. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD COMMITTED A MISTAKE BY NOT ADJUDICATING GROUND NO.2A WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN AS AN ADDITIONAL GROUND AND IN THIS RESPECT O UR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE 13 WH ERE THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOTED DOWN THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD ADMITTED THIS GROUND VIDE PARA 14 BUT HAD NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE SAME AND THEREFORE IT WAS ARGUE D THAT NON- ADJUDICATION THE GROUND OF APPEAL AMOUNTS TO MISTAK E APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 2.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 15 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOTED DOWN T HE SALES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT AS PER THE INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 133(6) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 2000-01 & 2001-12. THE LD. COUNSEL MA NOS.7 TO 10(ASR)/2013 `` MA NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 MA NO.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 3 SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD WRONGLY NOT ED THESE SALES FIGURES AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVIT ED TO LD. CIT(A)S ORDER AT PAGE 7 WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOTED DOWN THE SALES FIGURES OF M/S. GANGA SINGH MANUFACTURERS FOR THESE YEARS I.E. 199 9-2000 TO 2001-02. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE CIT(A)S FINDI NGS AT PAGE 7 THE SALE OF THE FIRM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WAS RS. 1 71 634/- AND THEREFORE IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE IS A APPARENT M ISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 2.2 INVITING OUR FURTHER ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE 17 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOUG HT PERMISSION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH THE TRIB UNAL HAD REJECTED. HOWEVER IN THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAD MENTIONED T HAT EVEN BEFORE THE BENCH THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED. THEREFORE IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THIS FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED. 2.3. COMING TO THE LAST MISTAKE OF APPLICATION OF N ET PROFIT RATE OF 5% THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT RECOR DED AT ANY BASIS FOR CONFIRMING NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% WHICH THE LD. CIT (A) HAD UPHELD ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF WHEREA S THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF WERE NOT APPLIC ABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS A MANUFACTURER AND NOT A RETAILER. THE LD. AR IN THIS RESPECT INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) IN THE EARLIER ROUND WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOTED THAT THE AO HA D NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS FOR APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE BY CITING ANY C OMPARABLE CASE WHEREAS IN THE SECOND ROUND THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% MA NOS.7 TO 10(ASR)/2013 `` MA NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 MA NO.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 4 INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCE EDINGS HAD EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO FIND ANY COMPARABLE CASE. 3. AS REGARDS THE MISTAKES IN OTHER TWO CASES RAISE D IN THE MISC. APPLICATIONS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE SUBMITTED THA T THE ONLY MISTAKE IN THESE TWO CASES IS THE CONFIRMATION OF NET PROFIT R ATE @ 5% AND HIS ARGUMENTS REMAINED THE SAME AS GIVEN HEREINABOVE. 4. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND INVITED OUR ATTEN TION TO PAGE 20 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD CLEARLY ADJUDICATED THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND HAD DISMISSED GROUNDS NO.2 & 3 OF THE APPEAL AND GROUND 2 INCLUDED GROUND NO.2A RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL GROUND AND THEREFORE IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT THAT IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISPOSED OFF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BY REJECTING THE SAME. 4.1. AS REGARDS THE DISPUTE IN SALE FIGURE THE LD. DR TOOK US TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AN D INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 7 OF THE ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT COMMITTED ANY MISTAKE BY NOTING WRONG SALE FIGURE A S SALE FIGURES ARE EMANATING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS FROM THE LD. CIT(A) ORDER AND THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ANY MISTA KE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. MA NOS.7 TO 10(ASR)/2013 `` MA NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 MA NO.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 5 4.2. AS REGARDS THE PERMISSION TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE LD. DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 17 OF THE ORDER OF TH E TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE BENCH NEVER DESIRED THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE IT AND RATHER HAS MADE A FINDING OF FACT THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND AS WELL AS IN THE SECOND ROUND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 4.3. REGARDING APPLICATION OF 5% NET PROFIT RATE T HE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) OF APP LICATION OF NET PROFIT RATE @ 5% DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER AS T HE TRIBUNAL HAD CONFIRMED THE SAME KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASES AND BY HOLDING THAT THE PROFIT AS EAR NED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MUCH MORE THAN ESTIMATED BY THE AO AND CONFIRM ED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVE GON E THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ADDI TIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS ADMITTED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 14 AND THE TRIBU NAL HAD ALSO ADJUDICATED THE SAME VIDE PARA 14.10 WHERE THE TRI BUNAL HAD DISMISSED GROUND NOS. 2 & 3. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRI BUNAL ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 14.10. AS REGARDS THE REJECTION OF APPLICATION UND ER RULE 46A WE CONFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO RECONCILIATI ON OF THE SALES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ANY RECONCILIATION WITH REGARD TO THE SALES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY BEEN REJECTED UNDER RULE 46A OF I.T.RULES. AS MA NOS.7 TO 10(ASR)/2013 `` MA NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 MA NO.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 6 A MATTER OF FACT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE NEVER PR ODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE OR WERE PRODUCED IN PART COULD NOT SERVE T HE PURPOSE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HA D ON ONE SIDE RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR PRODUCING BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND ON THE OTHER HAND HE HAD ARGUED AND SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT COULD N OT BE PRODUCED BECAUSE OF THE DISPUTE IN THE FAMILY. THEREFORE RA ISING OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BECAME INF RUCTUOUS WHICH HAS RIGHTLY BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS GROUNDS NO.2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THEREFORE THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS NOT ADJUDICATED DO NOT HOLD ANY FORCE AND THERE FORE THIS GROUND OF MISC. APPLICATION IS REJECTED. 6. NOW COMING TO SALE FIGURES NOTED DOWN BY THE IT AT AT PAGE 15 OF THE ORDER WE FIND THAT THE ITAT HAD NOTED THE SALE FIGURES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THOSE ARE AS PER THE INFORMATION RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 133(6) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 20001- 02. THE LD. COUNSEL HAD BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE FIGURE AS NOTED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WHICH IS NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE FIGURE NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD N OT NOTED DOWN THE FIGURE FOR THE A.Y. 1998-99. WE FURTHER FIND THAT T HE TRIBUNAL HAD NOTED DOWN THE FOLLOWING FIGURE OF SALES IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2001-02: ASSTT. YEAR SALES DECLARED PAYMENT RECEIVED AS PER THE ASSESSEE INFORMATION U/S 133(6) 1999-2000 24 87 969/- 53 19 587/- 2000-01 11 84 715/- 52 10 613/- 2001-02 2 85 199/- 21 95 462/- THE ABOVE SALE FIGURES ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS NOTE D BY THE AO VIDE PARA 8 OF HIS ORDER FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. FOR THE SAKE OF MA NOS.7 TO 10(ASR)/2013 `` MA NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 MA NO.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 7 CONVENIENCE THE FINDING OF THE AO FOR THE THREE YE ARS MENTIONING THEREIN SALES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW : A.Y.1999-2000 8. DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS.2 95 973/- ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.24 87 969/-. HOWEVER INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FA & CAO RAIL COACH FACTORY KAPURTHALA. ACCORDING TO THE IN FORMATION FURNISHED BY THE AFORESAID OFFICE THE ASSESSEE REC EIVED PAYMENT OF RS.53 19 587/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED ITS SALE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE SALES AND PURCHASES DECLARED AND EXPENSES DEBITED TO P & L AC COUNT. THEREFORE BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% ON T HE TOTAL SALES OF RS.53 19 587/- THE PROFIT WORKED OUT TO RS.2 65 979/-. A.Y.2000-2001 8. DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS.1 40 507/- ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.11 84 715/-. HOWEVER INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FA & CAO RAIL COACH FACTORY KAPURTHALA. ACCORDING TO THE IN FORMATION FURNISHED BY THE AFORESAID OFFICE THE ASSESSEE REC EIVED PAYMENT OF RS.52 10 613/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED ITS SALE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE SALES AND PURCHASES DECLARED AND EXPENSES DEBITED TO P & L AC COUNT. THEREFORE BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% ON T HE TOTAL SALES OF RS.52 10 613/- THE PROFIT WORKED OUT TO RS.2 60 530/-. A.Y.2001-02 8. DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT OF RS.33 824/- ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.2 85 199/-. HOWEVER INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF I NCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE OFFICE OF THE FA & CAO RAIL COACH FACTORY KAPURTHALA. ACCORDING TO THE INFORMA TION FURNISHED BY THE AFORESAID OFFICE THE ASSESSEE REC EIVED PAYMENT OF RS.21 95 462/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED ITS SALE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO VERIFY THE SALES AND MA NOS.7 TO 10(ASR)/2013 `` MA NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 MA NO.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 8 PURCHASES DECLARED AND EXPENSES DEBITED TO P & L AC COUNT. THEREFORE BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% ON T HE TOTAL SALES OF RS.21 95 462/- THE PROFIT WORKED OUT TO RS.1 09 773/-. WE FIND THAT THE FIGURES NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS NOTED BY THE AO AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOTED DOWN THE SALE FIGU RES AS NOTED BY THE AO. THEREFORE THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LSO NOT TENABLE. 7. AS REGARDS THE PERMISSION TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS ACCOUNT DUR ING TWO ROUNDS BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) AND TRIBUNAL HAD GIVEN FINDING IN THIS RESPECT VIDE PARA 14.6 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS H ELD THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON ONE HAND HAD ARGUED TH AT HE HAD PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES AND ON THE OTHER HAND HAD ARGUED THAT THE SAME CAN BE PRODUCE D IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A). FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY PARA 14.6 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS R EPRODUCED BELOW: 14.6. AS REGARDS THE PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUN T MR. M.R.BHAGAT ON ONE HAND ARGUED THAT HE HAD PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS A S WELL AS IN THE SECOND ROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND BEFORE THE A O IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THIS FACT IS INCORRECT IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS R EGARD PRODUCED BEFORE US EVEN. MR. M.R. BHAGAT ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE PRODUCED BECAUSE OF THE DISPUTE IN THE FAMILY AND THE SAME CAN BE PRODUCED IF THE MATTER I S RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) OR THE A.O. THIS ARGU MENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSED MR. M.R. BHAGAT TANTAMOUN T TO BLOWING HOT AND COLD IN THE SAME BREATH I.E. ON ONE SIDE HE IS MAKING ARGUMENTS THAT HAS PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BE FORE THE LOWER MA NOS.7 TO 10(ASR)/2013 `` MA NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 MA NO.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 9 AUTHORITIES AND ON THE OTHER HAND HE IS ARGUING THA T THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE PRODUCED BECAUSE OF THE DISPUTE I N THE FAMILY AND CAN BE PRODUCED IF SECOND CHANCE IS GIVEN BY RESTOR ING THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT (A) OR THE A.O. SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT W ERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE BENCH EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT THO UGH THE SAME WERE NOT DESIRED TO BE PRODUCED BY THE BENCH. THERE FORE THE PRAYER OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSED MR. M.R. BHAGA T FOR RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR PRO DUCING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOW AND THAT TOO SHOWING HIS NON-COOPERATIO N THROUGHOUT IN THE FIRST ROUND AS WELL AS IN THE SECOND ROUND CAN NOT BE GIVEN AND SUCH PRAYER OF MR. M.R. BHAGAT IS REJECTED. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THEREFORE THIS CONTENTION IS ALSO REJECTED. 8. AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION OF NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 14.9 HAS HELD THAT THE PROFIT EA RNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MUCH MORE THAN ESTIMATED BY THE AO AND CONFIRME D BY THE LD. CIT(A) BUT IT HAD NO ALTERNATIVE THAN TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS OF THE VIE W THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED MUCH MORE PROFITS THAN THE PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE AO BUT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT ENHANCE T HE TAX LIABILITY THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) W HICH IS BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 9. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BENCH HAD IGNORED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF DID NOT HAVE FORCE AS THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT MAKE THE ADDITION AS PER THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 44AF. THEREFORE THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS AL SO REJECTED. MA NOS.7 TO 10(ASR)/2013 `` MA NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 MA NO.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 10 10. THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE ARE OF ARGUMENTS IN NATURE AND THESE CANNOT BE SUBJECT MA TTER OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L WHICH THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO GET RECTIFIED DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AS IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE APPLICATION OF S ECTION 254(2) A MISTAKE MUST EXIST AND THE SAME MUST BE APPARENT FROM THE R ECORD. THE POWER TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE HOWEVER DOES NOT COVER CASES WHERE A REVISION OR REVIEW OF THE ORDER IS INTENDED. THE AMENDMENT OF A N ORDER DOES NOT MEAN OBLITERATION OF THE ORDER ORIGINALLY PASSED A ND ITS SUBSTITUTION BY A NEW ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 254(2). 11. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOKUL CHAND AGARWAL (202 ITR 14) HAS HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 254(2) OF THE 1961 ACT EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD EITHER SUO MOTU OR ON AN APPLICATIO N. THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER THUS DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IF IN ITS ORDER THERE IS NO MISTAKE WHICH IS PATENT AND OBVIOUS ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE TRIBUNAL UN DER SECTION 254(2) WILL BE ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER. AN OVERSIGHT OF A FAC T CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THIS MIGHT AT THE WORST LEAD TO PERVERSITY OF THE ORDE R FOR WHICH THE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SECTION 254(2) BUT A REFERENCE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 256 . THE NORMAL RULE IS THAT THE REMEDY BY WAY OF REVIEW IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUT E AND UNLESS CLOTHED WITH SUCH POWER BY THE STATUTE NO AUTHORIT Y CAN EXERCISE THE POWER. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS IMPLY PROCEEDINGS WHE RE A PARTY AS OF RIGHT CAN APPLY FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATT ER ALREADY DECIDED UPON AFTER A FRESH HEARING ON THE MERITS OF THE CO NTROVERSY BETWEEN MA NOS.7 TO 10(ASR)/2013 `` MA NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 MA NO.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 11 THE PARTIES. SUCH REMEDY IS CERTAINLY NOT PROVIDED BY THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN RESPECT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL. 12. IN SIMILAR SITUATION WHILE DEALING WITH THE RE CTIFICATION THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T AND ANR. VS. I.T.A.T AND ANR 206 ITR 126 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BEING A CREATURE OF THE ST ATUTE HAS TO CONFINE ITSELF IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION TO THE ENABLING OR EMPOWERING TERMS OF THE STATUTE. IT HAS NO INHERENT POWER. EVEN OTHERWISE IN CASES WHERE SPECIFIC PROVISION DELINE ATES THE POWERS OF THE COURT OR TRIBUNAL IT CANNOT DRAW UPON ITS ASSU MED INHERENT JURISDICTION AND PASS ORDERS AS IT PLEASES. THE POW ER OF RECTIFICATION WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE EXERCISED IN TERMS OF THAT PROVISION. IT CANNOT BE ENLARGED ON A NY ASSUMPTION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GOT AN INHERENT POWER OF RECT IFICATION OR REVIEW OR REVISION. IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT SUCH POWER OF RE VIEW OR REVISION HAS TO BE SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED; IT CANNOT BE INFERRED . UNLESS THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE SENSE OF PA TENT OBVIOUS AND CLEAR ERROR OR MISTAKE THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REC ALL ITS PREVIOUS ORDER. IF THE ERROR OR MISTAKE IS ONE WHICH COULD B E ESTABLISHED ONLY BY LONG-DRAWN ARGUMENTS OR BY A PROCESS OF INVESTIG ATION AND RESEARCH IT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE REC ORD. IF TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE ON A POINT OF LAW AND ONE OF THE ALTE RNATIVES IS ACCEPTED IN ITS PREVIOUS ORDER IT CANNOT BE HELD T HAT THE MISTAKE IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. UNLESS THERE ARE MANIFEST ERRORS WHICH ARE OBVIOUS CLEAR AND SELF-EVIDENT THE TRIBUNAL CANNO T RECALL ITS PREVIOUS ORDER IN AN ATTEMPT TO REWRITE THE ORDER. 13. SIMILARLY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. KARAM CHAND AND BROS. P. LTD. 176 ITR 535 HAS HELD AS UN DER IT IS EQUALLY SETTLED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRI BUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINISED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL OR WHET HER SOME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMENT. IF THE COURT ON A FA IR READING OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN IN TO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AN Y IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING ITS CONCLUSIONS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT MA NOS.7 TO 10(ASR)/2013 `` MA NOS.11 TO 14(ASR)/2013 MA NO.18 & 19(ASR)/2013 12 LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH UNLESS OF COURSE TH E CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVERSE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN IT S JUDGEMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONSI DERED THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AS IF THAT WERE A MAGIC FORMULA ; IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT IT HAS IN FACT DONE SO THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 14. THUS KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIONS AND IN VIEW OF JUDICIAL PRECEDEN TS AS NOTED ABOVE THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORDS AND THEREFORE THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT ALL THE TEN MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATIONS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/10/20 16. SD/- SD/- (N.K. CHOUDHRY) (T.S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /SKR/ DATED: 18/10/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEES.M/S. GANGA SINGH & SONS (MANUFACTURER S) (II) M/S. GANGA SINGH ENGINEERS (III) M/S. GANGA SINGH & SONS 2. THE ITO WARD 2(1) JALANDHAR 3. THE CIT(A) JALANDHAR 4. THE CIT JALANDHAR. 5. THE SR DR ITAT AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.