Shri Laxmanbhai R.Jalu,HUF, Surat v. The Income tax Officer, Ward-3(2),, Surat

MA 154/AHD/2011 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 15420524 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AADHJ8643P
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number MA 154/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Shri Laxmanbhai R.Jalu,HUF, Surat
Respondent The Income tax Officer, Ward-3(2),, Surat
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 20-09-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT JM AND SHRI A. MO HAN ALANKAMONY AM) M. A. NO.154/AHD/2011 ((IN ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 AY: 2005-06) LAXMANBHAI R. JALU (HUF) 71 KASTURBE CO-OP. HOS. SOCIETY RANDER ROAD SURAT PA NO. AADHJ 8643 P VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2) SURAT (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI H. K. LAL SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 23-03-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:30-03-2012 ORDER PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY : THIS MISC. APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 22-07-2011 IN ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED AR FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F LAND DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION. HE IS ALSO DERIVING A GRICULTURAL INCOME OUT OF LAND IN HIS POSSESSION BEARING S. NO. 119/01 119/4 325 AND 310 ADMEASURING -80- VINGAS LOCATED AT VILLAGE VADASADA SUB-DIST. MANAVADAR DIST: JUNAGADH HE F ILED ROI FOR A.Y. 2005-06 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2 12 948/- OUT OF CONSTRUCTION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT BUSINESS AND RS 1 45 950/- MA NO.154/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 875/AHD/2009 AY: 2005-06) LAXAMANBHAI R. JALU (HUF) VS ITO W-3(2) SURAT 2 FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. HE HAS SHOWN CAPITAL AC COUNT BALANCE OF RS.23 85 864/- AS ON 31/03/2005 (RS.20 26 966/- AS ON 01/04/2004 BEING OPENING BALANCE IN THE SAID CAPITA L ACCOUNT) IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT ATTACHED W ITH THE ROI FOR A.Y. 2005-06. THE AO THOUGH ACCEPTED CAPITA L ACCOUNT BALANCE IN APPELLANT'S HUF ACCOUNTS FOR RS.23 85 86 4/- DISPUTED OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE OF RS.20 20 212/- WITH M/S PARISHRAM PARK I.E. ONE OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE MADE ADDITION FOR BOTH THESE IT EMS WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2005-06. LR. CIT (A)-II SURAT HAS EXAMINED RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS IN DETAIL AND A LLOWED APPELLANT'S APPEAL ON BOTH THESE ISSUES. APPEAL FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED BY HON'BLE HAT BENCH 'D ' AHMED ABAD ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: (A) SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LAID OUT BY THE APPELLANT IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNER COUPLED WITH METICULOUS MAINTENAN CE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR EXEMPT INCOME SEEMS TO BE VERY APPEALING; (B) RETAINING CASH BALANCE IN HAND OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS AND ADVANCING FUND ON LOAN WITHOUT PROVIDING THE DE TAILS OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE LOAN OR PRODUCING THEIR CON FIRMATION MAKES APPELLANT'S CLAIM UNBELIEVABLE; (C) HON. BENCH HAS ACCEPTED DR'S RELIANCE ON SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT'S CASE REPORTED IN 214 ITR 801. 2. HON'BLE BENCH OF IT AT HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT IN PARA -7- OF ITS ORDER THAT THE AR HAS SUBMITTED PAPER BOOK CONT AINING 1 TO 88 PAGES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. WITH DUE RESPECT IT HAS TO BE SUBMITTED THAT INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT A REFERE NCE TO THE SAME WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF HEARING FOLLOWING PAG ES ARE NOT DEALT WITH OR APPRECIATED : (I) PAGE NO. 34 WHICH IS A CAPITAL A/C OF TH E APPELLANT IN HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S PARISHRAM PARK FOR F.Y. 2003-04. CLOSING BALANCE OF THE SAID ACCOUNT I.E. RS.20 20 212/- HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF F.Y . 2004-05 I.E. A.Y. 2005-06. THERE IS NO CREDIT BALAN CE IN MA NO.154/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 875/AHD/2009 AY: 2005-06) LAXAMANBHAI R. JALU (HUF) VS ITO W-3(2) SURAT 3 THE SAID ACCOUNT EVEN DURING THE WHOLE F.Y. 2003-04 . CLOSING CREDIT BALANCE IS DUE TO JV ENTRY PASSED AS ON 31-03-2004. JV ENTRY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CREDIT ENTR Y SO AS TO ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT; (II) PAGE NO. 28 WHICH IS A COPY OF BALANCE S HEET AS ON 31-03-2004 IN WHICH APPELLANT'S CAPITAL HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.20 26 966/- ON LIABILITIES SIDE WHICH IS ACCEPTED AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE HI THE SAME BALAN CE SHEET INVESTMENT IN PARISHRAM PARK HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.20 20 212/- ON ASSETS SIDE' WHICH IS DISPUTED OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT IT IS IN FACT THE PART OF RS.20 26 966/-; (III) PAGE NO. 37 WHICH IS A BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT'S HUF AS ON 31-03-2002 IN WHICH COMPLETE DETAILS OF ADVANCES WERE REFLECTED. CONFIRMATIONS W ERE NEVER CALLED FOR. CASH BALANCE IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY REGULARLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY MAINTAINED BOOKS. BOOK S FOR F.Y. 1997-98 TO F.Y. 2004-05 WERE PRODUCED BEFORE T HE AO AND ALSO ACCEPTED BY HIM; (IV) AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND EXPENSES DETAILS WH ICH HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AND ARE NOT UNDER DISPUTE. BIL LS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCED PLACED IN PAPER BOOK ARE NOT FOUND TO BE NON-GENUINE. PURCHASE FROM THE APPELLAN T IN HANDS OF THE BUYER WAS ALSO ACCEPTED; (V) PAGE NO. 3 TO 13 ARE EVIDENCES FOR THE POS SESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH THE APPELLANT. FURTHER R ENT PAID AND DEBITED IN P & L A/C IS ALLOWED BY THE AO WHIC H IS ALSO AN EVIDENCE OF POSSESSION OF LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT; (VI) PAGE NO. 75 DETAILS OF FARM WISE AGRICULTU RAL INCOME AND EXPENSES FOR F.Y. 2005-06; (VII) ITAT DECISION IN ITA NO. 4044/2008 FOR A.Y . 2005- 06 IN APPELLANT'S INDIVIDUAL CASE IS EVIDENCE THAT THE MA NO.154/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 875/AHD/2009 AY: 2005-06) LAXAMANBHAI R. JALU (HUF) VS ITO W-3(2) SURAT 4 APPELLANT CARRIED OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND E ARNED INCOME OUT OF IT. COPY OF THE SAID DECISION IS PLAC ED ON RECORDS DURING HEARING OF AN APPEAL AND GIVEN TO TH E DR. (VIII) CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE AR AND PLACED I N THE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 7 TO 20. THESE HAVE GONE OUT OF THE SIGHT OF THE HON'BLE BENCH. 3. HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE ORDER ON 22/07/ 2011 WHICH WAS SERVED ON US ON 14/09/2011. THUS THIS MA IS WI THIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD. THE DISMISSAL OF APPEAL WITHOUT PROPER LOOKING IN T O THE EVIDENCES AND JUDGMENTS IS A MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE U /S 254(2) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF FACT OF SETTLED LEGAL POSITION T HAT OPENING CARRIED FORWARD BALANCE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHEN SU PPORTED BY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED IN COURSE OF ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A CREDIT ENT RY CAPABLE TO ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. SECOND LY THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO REOPENED ASSESSMENT FOR A. Y. 2 004-05. LASTLY PRESUMPTIONS HOWEVER STRONG CANNOT TAKE P LACE OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE; WE URGE THAT THIS MISCELLANEO US PETITION BE ALLOWED AND OUT DEVOTION ON THE LAW OF THE LAND BE UPHELD. 3. THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISS ION OF THE LEARNED AR AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IS A SPEAKING ORDER AND ANY ALTERATION OF THE SAME WILL TANTAMOUN T TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT AND HE NCE THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE DI SMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED A P APER BOOK CONTAINING 88 PAGES THE DETAILED FACTS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BROUGHT OUT BEFORE THE BENCH AT THE TIME OF HEARING BY WAY OF MA NO.154/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 875/AHD/2009 AY: 2005-06) LAXAMANBHAI R. JALU (HUF) VS ITO W-3(2) SURAT 5 ARGUMENT BY THE LD.AR. FURTHER FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE PARTICULARS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK ARE NOT FORTHCO MING. SUFFICIENT DISCUSSIONS ON THE MATERIALS CONTAINED IN THE PAPER BOOK DOES NOT EMERGE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). FURTHE R THE LEARNED AR CONCEDED THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DURING THE EARLIER YEARS. THUS THE BALANCE SHEET AND STATE MENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BEFORE THE REVENUE ON ANY EARL IER OCCASIONS AND THE ENTIRE CAPITAL BUILD UP STORY CENTERED ON A GRICULTURAL INCOME ACCRUED FROM LEASED OUT PROPERTY AND LOAN FROM OTHE R PARTIES WHICH APPEARS TO BE SHAM. ON EXAMINING THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. PARISHRAM PARK AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2004 SUBMITTED IN PAGE NO.34 OF THE PAPER BOOK IT REVEALS THAT DURING THE PERIOD 0 1-04-2003 TO 31-03- 2004 THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT IN CASH BY WAY OF OP ENING CASH BALANCE OF RS.20 20 212/- AND OBTAINED LOAN FOR RS. 24 00 000/- AND THE SAME WAS INVESTED IN LAND FOR RS.44 20 212/-. T HE DETAILS OF THE LAND PURCHASED WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE US. THE ASS ESSEE IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-03-2004 STATED THAT IT HAD O PENING CAPITAL OF RS.20 26 966/- AND INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN PARISHRAM PARK FOR RS.20 20 212/-. THE LEARNED AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PAGE NO.37 CONTAINED THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 3 1-03-2002 ALONG WITH THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED AR FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN PAGE NO.3 AND 13 OF THE PAPE R BOOK EVIDENCE FOR POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURE LAND WAS FURNISHED. H OWEVER ON PERUSING THE RELEVANT PAGES PAGE NO.3 AND 4 CONTAI NS FEW PAGES OF THE LETTER BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX DATED MA NO.154/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 875/AHD/2009 AY: 2005-06) LAXAMANBHAI R. JALU (HUF) VS ITO W-3(2) SURAT 6 10-12-2008 WHEREIN XEROX COPIES OF THE SAID RECORDS WERE FURNISHED WHICH ARE IN REGIONAL LANGUAGE AND WITHOUT ENGLISH TRANSLATION. PAGE NO.13 OF THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINS CERTAIN AFFIDAVITS REGARDING POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURE LAND. FURTHER THE ENTIRE CAPITAL BUILT-UP STORY CENTERS AROUND AGRICULTURE INCOME DERIVED FRO M AGRICULTURE LAND OBTAINED ON RENT. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE PAPER BOOK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE RIGHT FROM THE FIRST INSTANCE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO WAS NOT ELABOR ATELY ARGUED OR EXAMINED. THE COMPLETE DETAILS EXPLAINING THE MERIT S EMERGING FROM THE PAPER BOOK DOES NOT ALSO FLOW FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE LIMITED ASS ISTANCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED A REASONED ORDER. PARA 8 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT APPEARS FROM THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY IT IS QUIT QUESTION ABLE. THE ASSESSEE ALLEGES TO HAVE MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS METICULOUSLY FOR AN ACTIVITY WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM T AX. HOWEVER ALL THE SURPLUS FROM SUCH ACTIVITY IS EITHER RETAIN ED AS CASH IN HAND OR ADVANCED TO VARIOUS PARTIES FOR WHICH NO DE TAILS OR CONFORMATION LETTERS ARE PRODUCED. FOR SUCH A VOLUM INOUS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE SUFFICIENT VOUCHERS FROM TH E MANDI/MARKET OR BUYERS ARE NOT MAINTAINED. FROM THE ELABORATE NARRATION OF THE LD. AR IT APPEARS THAT ALL THESE A RRANGEMENTS ARE MADE FOR CONVENIENCE TO DOCUMENTARY ESTABLISH T HAT THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 20 20 212/- AND THE CUR RENT YEARS INCOME OF RS. 1 45 950/- HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM AG RICULTURAL OPERATIONS. AT THIS JUNCTURE THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. DR SEEMS TO BE VERY RELEVANT. THE GIST OF THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS REPRODU CED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- MA NO.154/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 875/AHD/2009 AY: 2005-06) LAXAMANBHAI R. JALU (HUF) VS ITO W-3(2) SURAT 7 THE APPELLANT CARRIED ON BUSINESS AS A DEALER IN A RT PIECES ANTIQUES AND CURIOS IN BANGALORE. DURING TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 1971-72 SHE CLAIMED THAT SHE RECEI VED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.3 11 831 BY WAY OF RACE WINNINGS IN JACKPOTS AND TREBLE EVENTS IN RACES AT TURF CLUBS IN BANGALO RE MADRAS AND HYDERABAD. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS SHOWN BY THE APP ELLANT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS. FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1972-73 SHE CLAIMED RECEIPTS OF RS.93 500/- AS RACE WINNING S IN TWO JACKPOTS AT BANGALORE AND MADRAS AND THE SAID AMOUN T WAS CREDITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS. THE I NCOME-TAX OFFICER INCLUDED THESE AMOUNTS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ASSESSED THEM. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSI ONER CONFIRMED THE ORDER. THE APPELLANT REFERRED THE MAT TER TO THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION BY A MAJORITY HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GENUINE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : (I) THE APPELLA NTS KNOWLEDGE OF RACING WAS VERY MEAGER (II) A JACKPOT IS A STAKE OF FIVE EVENTS IN A SINGLE DAY AND ONE CAN BELIEVE A REGULAR AND EXPERIENCED PUNTER CLEARING A JACKPOT OCCASIONALLY BUT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF HAVING WON A NUMBER OF JA CKPOTS IN THREE OR FOUR SEASONS NOT MERELY AT ONE PLACE BUT A T THREE DIFFERENT CENTRES NAMELY MADRAS BANGALORE AND HYD ERABAD APPEARED PRIMA FACIE TO BE WILD AND CONTRARY TO S TATISTICAL THEORIES AND EXPERIENCE OF FREQUENCIES AND PROBABIL ITIES (III) THE APPELLANTS BOOKS DID NOT SHOW ANY DRAWINGS ON RACE DAYS OR ON THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING DAYS FOR THE PURCHA SE OF JACKPOT COMBINATION TICKETS WHICH ENTAILED SIZABLE AMOUNTS VARYING GENERALLY BETWEEN RS.2 000 AND RS.3 000. TH E DRAWINGS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS COULD NOT BE CO-RELA TED TO THE VARIOUS RACING EVENTS AT WHICH THE APPELLANT MADE T HE ALLEGED WINNINGS. (IV) WHILE THE APPELLANTS CAPITAL ACCOUN T WAS CREDITED WITH THE GROSS AMOUNT OF RACE WINNINGS THERE WERE NO DEBITS EITHER FOR EXPENSES AND PURCHASES OF TICKETS OR FOR LOSSES (V) IN VIEW OF THE EXCEPTIONAL LUCK CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN E NJOYED BY THE APPELLANT HER LOSS OF INTEREST IN RACES FROM 1 972 ASSUMED SIGNIFICANCE. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION TOOK THE VI EW THAT WINNINGS IN RACING BECAME LIABLE TO INCOME-TAX FROM APRIL 1 1972 BUT ONE WOULD NOT GIVE UP AN ACTIVITY YIELDING OR LIKELY TO YIELD A LARGE INCOME MERELY BECAUSE THE INCOME WOUL D SUFFER TAX AND THAT THE POSITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT HOWEV ER IF THE MA NO.154/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 875/AHD/2009 AY: 2005-06) LAXAMANBHAI R. JALU (HUF) VS ITO W-3(2) SURAT 8 CLAIM OF WINNINGS IN RACES WAS FALSE AND WHAT WERE PASSED OFF AS SUCH WINNINGS REALLY REPRESENTED THE APPELLANTS TAXABLE INCOME FROM SOME UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT: HELD DISMISSING THE APPEAL THAT THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AFTER CONSIDERING THE SURROUNDING CIRCUM STANCES AND APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES HAD RI GHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM ABOUT THE AMOU NT BEING HER WINNINGS FROM RACES WAS NOT GENUINE (SEE P.808E ). FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LAID OUT BY THE APPELLANT IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNER COUPLED WITH M ETICULOUS MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SEEMS TO BE VERY A PPEALING HOWEVER THE CRUCIAL ASPECT OF RETAINING CASH BALANC E IN HAND OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS AND ADVANCING FUNDS ON LOAN WITHOUT PROVIDING THE DETAILS OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE LOAN OR PRODUCING THEIR CONFIRMATION MAKES THE WHOLE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE UNBELIEVABLE. FURTHER RELYING UPON THE DECISION RE NDERED BY HON. APPEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CI T CITED BY THE LD. DR SUPRA WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO CONFIRM T HE ORDER OF THE LD.AO. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 5. FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE A ND FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT EVEN IF THERE EXIST AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THIS CASE IS NOT A FIT CASE TO BE RECALLED SINCE THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECO RD AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE ACT AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE POWE R OF REVIEW OF OUR OWN ORDER UNDER THE ACT. MA NO.154/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 875/AHD/2009 AY: 2005-06) LAXAMANBHAI R. JALU (HUF) VS ITO W-3(2) SURAT 9 6. IN THE RESULT THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-03-2012. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/ LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/- -- - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD