The Income Tax Officer, Abohar v. Sh. Balish Chander Makkar, Fazilka

MA 16/ASR/2017 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1620924 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AFZPM9909A
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number MA 16/ASR/2017
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant The Income Tax Officer, Abohar
Respondent Sh. Balish Chander Makkar, Fazilka
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 14-07-2017
Next Hearing Date 14-07-2017
First Hearing Date 14-07-2017
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 27-01-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. T. S. KAPOOR ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND SH.N. K. CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. NO. 16/(ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 427/(ASR)/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN: AFZPM9909A INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- II (4) ABOHAR. VS. SH. BALISH CHANDER MAKKAR CIVIL LINES PHASE-II FAZILKA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (D.R. ) RESPONDENT BY: SH. P. N. ARORA (ADV.) DATE OF HEARING: 25.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 30.11.2017 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY RE VENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 03.08.2016 . 2. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE HO N'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO REASON HAS BEEN RECORDED BY TRIBUNA L BEFORE ADMITTING SUCH EVIDENCE AND HENCE THE ITAT ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HON'BLE ITAT HAD PLAC ED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE REMAINED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR FOR GETTING THE SALE DEED REGISTERED IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER AND THAT HE HAD FILED A SUIT AGAINST THE PURCHASER FOR RECOVERY OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.77LAKS. IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT WHILE PLACING RELIANCE ON THESE SUBMISSIONS THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ALLEGED SALE AGREEMENT WAS S IGNED BETWEEN THE MA NO. 16 (ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.427/(ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 2 ASSESSEE AND PURCHASER ON 14.06.2008 AND WAS CANCEL LED BY MUTUAL CONSENT ON 18.06.2008 AND THEREFORE HE COULD NOT HA VE ATTENDED THE OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR FOR GETTING THE SALE DEED R EGISTERED AND COULD NOT HAVE FILED CIVIL SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF THE BALANCE A MOUNT AS THE SALE AGREEMENT ITSELF WAS CANCELLED BY MUTUAL CONSENT. T HE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT T HE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF RECEIPTS RECEIVED IN VI EW OF AGREEMENT TO SELL. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE OBSERVATION OF THE IT AT IN ITS ORDER ABOUT RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND INVESTMENT BY THE ASSE SSEE AND DEPOSIT IN SONS ACCOUNT ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY AND THEREFORE THE ITAT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF RECEIPTS RECEIVED IN VIEW OF AGREEMENT TO SELL. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECI DING THE APPEAL AN ERROR CREPT IN ITS ORDER WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIE D. 3. THE LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT HON' BLE TRIBUNAL HAS GOT INHERENT POWERS TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E AND THE HON'BLE BENCH AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION AND AFTER CON SIDERING THE MATERIAL AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND LD. DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING HAD NOT OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 9 AT PAGE 6 OF THE ORDER WHERE THE HON'BLE BENCH HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY DEPARTMENT DESER VES TO BE REJECTED. AS REGARDS THE OTHER CONTENTION CONTAINED IN THE MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATION THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT AT PAGE NO. 3 AND 6 OF TH E ORDER OF THE MA NO. 16 (ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.427/(ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 3 TRIBUNAL THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT AS PER AGREEMENT BETWEEN SH. KISHAN KUMAR SHARMA HAD MADE THREE PAYM ENTS AND THE AMOUNT CAME TO BE RS.73 00 000/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE MAKING THIS M. A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OMITTED THE A MOUNT OF RS.43 LAKSHS WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON 16.06.2008 AND THEREFORE THE WHOLE CONTENTION OF REVENUE IS IN CONSISTENCE WITH THE FACTS OF THE CAS E AND THEREFORE IT WAS ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF HON 'BLE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS RECTIFIABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT HON'BLE TRI BUNAL HAD PASSED THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS SH. MANISH MAKKAR (FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE) VIDE ITS ORDER DATE D 01.03.2016. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN BOTH CASES THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD OBSERVED THAT BOTH HAD MADE DEPOSITS IN CASH IN THEIR RESPECTIVE SAVING ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE AFTER CONFRONTING TH E SAME TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIONS IN THE CASE OF THESE TWO PERSONS. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITIONS AND WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF SH. MANISH MAK KAR HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ON APPEALS FILE D BY ASSESSEES AS WELL AS BY REVENUE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE AND A LLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES REM ITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING TH E ISSUE AFRESH. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED A SPEAKING AND WELL REA SONED ORDER AND HAD ONLY REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE OFFICE OF ASSES SING OFFICER. FOR THE MA NO. 16 (ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.427/(ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 4 SAKE OF COMPLETENESS THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE T RIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE I.E. SH . MANISH KUMAR S/O SH. BALISH CHANDER. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD NOTED THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE SAV ING BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. RS. 2 00 000/- ON 24.04.2008 RS. 8 00 000/- ON 14.05.2008 RS. 5 000/- ON 17.06.2008 RS. 7 00 000/- ON 17.06.2008 RS. 50 000/- ON 18.06.2008 RS 12 5.00/- ON 11.02.2009 TOTAL RS. 17 67 500/- THE ASSESSES BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD SUBMI TTED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE AMOUNTS FROM HIS FATHER SH. BALISH CHA NDER MAKKAR HOWEVER HIS CONTENTIONS WERE REJECTED BY THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW HOLDING THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF SH. BALISH CHANDER NO SUCH ENTRIES WERE REFLECTED. WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT SH. BALISH CHA NDER MAKKAR HAD RECEIVED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.68 00 000/- IN CASH F ROM THE BUYER SH. KRISTIAN KUMAR OUT OF WHICH RS.55 40 000/- WAS UTIL IZED BY HIM FOR DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE BALANCE AMOUN T WAS AVAILABLE WITH HIM FOR MAKING DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HIS SON I.E. ASSESSEE. THIS ASPECT; HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE OFFICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN VIEW OF THE CASH RECEIVED BY FATHER OF ASSESSEE FROM SH. KRISHAN KUM AR SHARMA AND AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE REGARDING EXPLANATION OF THE B ALANCE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY THE ISSUE OF INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3 20 000/- NEEDS TO BE E XAMINED AFRESH IN VIEW OF THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE FATHER OF AS SESSEE. THEREFORE THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT IN THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH COULD BE RECTIFIED. A BARE LOOK AT SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT WHICH DE ALS WITH RECTIFICATION MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS RECTIFIABLE. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE APP LICATION OF SECTION 254(2) A MISTAKE MUST EXIST AND THE SAME MUST BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE POWER TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE HOWEVER DOES NOT COVER CASES WHERE A REVISION OR REVIEW OF THE ORDER IS INTENDED. MISTA KE MEANS TO TAKE OR MA NO. 16 (ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.427/(ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 5 UNDERSTAND WRONGLY OR INACCURATELY; TO MAKE AN ERRO R IN INTERPRETING IT IS AN ERROR; A FAULT A MISUNDERSTANDING A MISCONC EPTION. APPARENT MEANS VISIBLE; CAPABLE OF BEING SEEN; EASILY SEEN; OBVIOUS; PLAIN A MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS ONE WHICH IS PATENT WHICH IS OBVIOUS AND WHOSE DISCOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ARGUMENT OR ELABORATION. THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTI ON 254(2) IS PERMISSIBLE WHERE IT IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF TH E TRIBUNAL THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. ACCORDINGLY THE AMENDMENT OF AN ORDER DOES NOT MEAN OBLITERATION OF THE ORDER ORIGI NALLY PASSED AND ITS SUBSTITUTION BY A NEW ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBL E UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2). FURTHER WHERE AN ERR OR IS FAR FROM SELF EVIDENT IT CEASES TO BE AN APPARENT ERROR. IT IS N O DOUBT TRUE THAT A MISTAKE CAPABLE OF BEING RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 25 4(2) IS NOT CONFINED TO CLERICAL OR ARITHMETICAL MISTAKES. ON THE OTHER HAN D IT DOES NOT COVER ANY MISTAKE WHICH MAY BE DISCOVERED BY A COMPLICATE D PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION ARGUMENT OR PROOF. AS OBSERVED BY TH E SUPREME COURT IN MASTER CONSTRUCTION CO. (P) LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA [1966] 17 STC 360 AN ERROR WHICH IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD S HOULD BE ONE WHICH IS NOT AN ERROR WHICH DEPENDS FOR ITS DISCOVERY ON ELA BORATE ARGUMENTS ON QUESTIONS OF FACT OR LAW. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO E XPRESSED IN SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEDGE V. MALLIKARJUN BHAV ANAPPA TIRUMALE AIR 1960 SC 137. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE LANGUAG E USED IN ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908 IS DIFF ERENT FROM THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. POWER IS GIVEN T O VARIOUS AUTHORITIES TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS U NDOUBTEDLY NOT MORE MA NO. 16 (ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.427/(ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 6 THAN THAT OF THE HIGH COURT TO ENTERTAIN A WRIT PET ITION ON THE BASIS OF AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. MISTAKE IS AN ORDINARY WORD BUT IN TAXATION LAWS IT HAS A SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE . IT IS NOT AN ARITHMETICAL OR CLERICAL ERROR ALONE THAT COMES WIT HIN ITS PURVIEW. IT COMPREHENDS ERRORS WHICH AFTER A JUDICIOUS PROBE I NTO THE RECORD FROM WHICH IT IS SUPPOSED TO EMANATE ARE DISCERNED. THE WORD MISTAKE IS INHERENTLY INDEFINITE IN SCOPE AS WHAT MAY BE A MI STAKE FOR ONE MAY NOT BE ONE FOR ANOTHER. IT IS MOSTLY SUBJECTIVE AND THE DIVIDING LINE IN BORDER AREAS IS THIN AND INDISCERNIBLE. IT IS SOMETHING WH ICH A DULY AND JUDICIOUSLY INSTRUCTED MIND CAN FIND OUT FROM THE R ECORD. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE POWER TO RECTIFY UNDER SECTION 254(2) I T IS NOT SUFFICIENT IF THERE IS MERELY A MISTAKE IN THE ORDERS SOUGHT TO B E RECTIFIED. THE MISTAKE TO BE RECTIFIED MUST BE ONE APPARENT FROM T HE RECORD. A DECISION ON THE DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW OR UNDISPUTED QUESTIO N OF FACT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE WORD APPARENT IS THAT IT MUST BE SOMETHING WHICH APPEA RS TO BE SO EX FACIE AND IT IS IN CAPABLE OF ARGUMENT OR DEBATE. IT IS T HEREFORE FOLLOWS THAT A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW OR FACT OR FAI LURE TO APPLY THE LAW TO A SET OF FACTS WHICH REMAINS TO BE INVESTIGATED CANNO T BE CORRECTED BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KA RAN CHAND THAPAR & BR. P. LTD. 176 ITR 535 HAS HELD AS UNDER : IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL OR WHETHER S OME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMENT. IF THE COURT ON A FAIR READING OF THE JU DGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL MA NO. 16 (ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.427/(ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 7 FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT M ATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING ITS CONCLUSIONS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH UNLESS OF COURSE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVERSE . IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN IT S JUDGMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CU MULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS IF THAT WERE A MAGIC FORMULA; IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOW S THAT IT HAS IN FACT DONE SO THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. SIMILARLY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISIONS IN T.C.(A) NO. 156 OF 2006 DATED 21.08.2007 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. WHE N THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DECIDED AN ISSUE BY APPLYING ITS MIND AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE THE SAME CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF T HE ACT. THERE WAS NO NECESSITY WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. EVEN AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL WE COULD NOT FIND A SINGLE REASON IN THE WHOLE ORDER AS TO HOW T HE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED AND FOR WHAT REASONS. THERE IS NO APPARENT ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THEREBY THE TRIBUNAL SAT AS AN APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY OVER ITS OWN ORDER. IT IS COMPLETELY IMPERMISSIBLE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS TRAVELED OUT OF ITS JURISDICTION TO ALLOW A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IN T HE NAKE OF REVIEWING ITS OWN ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION THE TRIBUNAL REVIEWED ITS EARLIER ORDER AND ALLOWED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIO N WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE REHEARING OF THE APPEAL FOR A FRESH DISPOSAL AND DO ING SO WOULD OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAK ES AND POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2) IS LIMITED AND NARROW. IT IS RESTRIC TED TO RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. RECALLING THE OR DER OBVIOUSLY WOULD MEAN PASSING OF A FRESH ORDER. RECALLING OF THE ORDER IS SNOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SE C. 254(2) OF THE ACT. ONLY GLARING AND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD ALONE CAN BE RECTIFIED AND HENCE ANYTHING DEBATABLE CANNOT BE A SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION. FURTHER THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT ON T HE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) AS REPORTED IN THE CASE OF RAS BIHARI BANSAL VS. CIT 293 ITR 365 HAS HELD AS UNDER: MA NO. 16 (ASR)/2017 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.427/(ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2009-10 8 SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ENABLES T HE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN OVERSIGHT OF A FACT CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT M ISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER THIS SECTION. SIMILARLY FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSI ON IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT. THE MERE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT ALLOWED A DEDUCTION EVEN IF THE CONCLUSION IS WRONG WILL BE NO GROUND FOR MOVING AN APPLICATI ON UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER IN THE GARB OF AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO REOPEN AND RE-ARGUE THE WHOLE MATTER WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN THE LIGHT OF RATIO OF THE DECISIONS CITED AND DI SCUSSION AS ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE APPLICATION OF REVENU E AND DISMISS THE SAME BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.11. 2017. SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 30/11/2017 GP/SR./PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A) (4) THE CIT (5) THE SR DR I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER