M/s. Suyog Sales & Marketing, Ahmedabad v. The Income tax Officer, Ward-2,, Mehsana

MA 235/AHD/2010 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 23520524 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAMFS5867N
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number MA 235/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Suyog Sales & Marketing, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income tax Officer, Ward-2,, Mehsana
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 16-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 16-09-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 27-10-2010
Judgment Text
. . . .. . . .. . ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' # # # # $ $ $ $ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : A BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M. & HONBLE SH RI A.N.PAHUJA A.M.) %% %% %% %% (M.A.) NO.235/A/2010 : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1401/AHD./2008) M/S.SUYOG SALES & MARKETING AHMEDABAD .. .. ( / APPLICANT) -VS- PAN: AAMFS 5 867N I.T.O. WARD-2 MEHSANA ..( &'() / RESPONDENT) * + /APPLICANT BY : SHRI A.C.SHAH A.R. &'() * + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHANSHU S. JHAH SR.D.R . - * .# / DATE OF HEARING : 09/09/2011 /01 * .# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/09/2011 / ORDER PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR RECALLING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE I.T.A.T. A BENCH AHMEDABAD IN ITA .NO.1401/AHD./2006 DECIDED ON 24.09.2010. 2. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE READS AS UNDER: 1. WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF THE IT AT ORDER DATED 24- 09-2010. THERE ARE CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES WHICH ARE AS UNDER. 2. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WHILE DEALING WITH GROUND NO.1 HAS OBSERVED IN PARA NO.8 AS UNDER: 'AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES YOU HAVE CAREFUL GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE BALANCE SHEET HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD HARDLY ANY FUNDS OF ITS OWN. 2 M.A.NO. 235-AHD-2010 AS AGAINST THIS THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE 'S LEARNED COUNSEL IS THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF RS. 1 19 35 507....................' 2.1 WHEREAS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FAILS TO APPRECIA TE THE GROUND NO. 1.1 TO 1.3 RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AR PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE GIST O F SUBMISSION GIVEN IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCES WERE NOT G IVEN OUT OF THE BORROWINGS DURING THE YEAR AND THAT WHEN AO HAS GIVEN THE CRED IT OF RS. 1.19 CRORE THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE SAME CREDIT AND THAT H E CANNOT TRAVEL BEYOND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FAIL S TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 2.2 THIS IS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 3. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WHILE DEALING WITH GROUND NO. 2 HAS OBSERVED IN PARA NO. 11 AS UNDER: 'HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES WE HAVE CAREFULLY GON E THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO SUPPORT THE TRADING RESULT. THESE ARE PRODUCED BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LEARNED CIT(A) TOOK THE VIE W THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEING NEW EVIDENCE CANNOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. IT IS A N WELL SETTLED LAW THAT POWER OF LEARNED CIT(A) IS CO-TERMINUS WITH THAT OF ASSES SING OFFICER AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. KANPU R COAL SYNDICATE REPORTED IN 56 ITR 356 (SC) AS A MATTER OF FACT RULE 46A STAT UTORILY RECOGNIZES THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBJECT TO CE RTAIN CONDITIONS. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN P RODUCING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE THEREFORE RESTOR E THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFI CER WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE HI M. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXAMINE THE SAME AND AFTER VERIFICATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS WHICH ARE FURNISHED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFO RE US THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS GROUND OF APPE AL.' 3.1 WHEREAS THE GROUND NO.2 IS ONLY REGARDING ADD ITION OF RS. 50 000 CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1 00 000. THE REVENUE HAS NOT COME UP IN APPEAL AGAINST THE RELIE F OF RS. 1 00 000 THEREFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 1 50 000 MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GP. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS SET- ASIDE THE GROUND BY REFERRING TO RULE 46A. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE AR THAT EVEN I F BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED THE GP DURING A.Y. 2005-2006 IS BETTER TH AN EARLIER YEARS; THEREFORE THE 3 M.A.NO. 235-AHD-2010 DELETION OF RS. 50 000 WAS PRAYED INSTEAD THE ENTIR E ADDITION IS SET-ASIDE IGNORING THE RELIEF GRANTED BY C1T(A). 3.2 THIS BEING APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD. 4. IT IS NECESSARY THAT EVERY FACT FOR AGAINST THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED WITH DUE CARE BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IT MUS T HAVE GIVEN THE FINDINGS IN A MANNER WHICH WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE WHAT WERE THE Q UESTIONS WHICH AROSE FOR DETERMINATION WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE PRO AND CONTRA IN REGARD TO EACH ONE OF THEM AND WHAT WERE THE FINDINGS WHICH ON THE EVIDEN CE ON RECORD BEFORE IT - RAMESHCHANDRA M. LUTHRA V/S. ACIT 257 ITR460(GUJ). 5.1 THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD N OT BE COLORED BY ANY IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS OR MATTERS OF PREJUDICE A ND IF THERE ARE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF DOING SO. ON NO ACCOUNT WHATEVER SHOULD THE TRIBUNAL BASE ITS FINDINGS ON SUSPICIOUS CONJUNCTURES OR SU RMISES NOR SHOULD IT ACT ON NO EVIDENCE AT ALL OR IMPROPER REJECTIONS OF MATERIAL AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE OR PARTLY ON EVIDENCE AND PARTLY ON SUSPICIOUS CONJUNCTURES OR SURMISES- OMAR SALAY MOHAMED SAIT V/S. CIT 37 ITR 151-170 (SC). 5.2 THE PROCEDURE REQUIRED TO BE ADOPTED BY THE T RIBUNAL SO AS TO ENSURE THAT THE ORDER IS AN APPELABLE ORDER MUST BE ONE WHICH REFL ECTS NOT ONLY ITS CONCLUSION BUT THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS ALSO. REASONS HOWEVER BRIEF ARE THE SOUL AND BACKBONE OF AN ORDER -S.J. & S.P. FAMILY TRUST V/S. DCIT 277 ITR 557 (GUJ). 5.3 EVERY JUDICIAL / QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY / AUTHOR ITY MUST PASS A REASONED ORDER WHICH SHOULD REFLECT THE APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO THE ISSUES / POINTS RAISED BEFORE IT. THE REQUIREMENT O F RECORDING REASONS IN AN IMPORTANT SAFEGUARD TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF THE RUL E OF LAW. IT INTRODUCES CLARITY CHECKS THE INTRODUCTION OF EXTRANEOUS OR IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS AND MINIMIZES ARBITRARINESS IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS - CIT V/S. PALWAL CO.OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. 284 ITR 153 (P&H). 5.4 MERE REFERENCE TO DECISION OF ANOTHER BENCH W ITHOUT MENTIONING THE FACTS OF THAT CASE IS NOT PROPER [CIT V/S. MATRIX INTEL P. L TD. 294 ITR 257 (MAD)]. 5.5 WHEN PREJUDICE RESULT FROM AN ORDER ATTRIBUTA BLE TO TRIBUNAL'S MISTAKE ERROR OR OMISSION THEN IT IS DUTY OF TRIBUNAL TO SET IT RIGHT [HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. V/S. CIT 295 ITR 466 SC]. 4 M.A.NO. 235-AHD-2010 5.6 NON CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD IS A PPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD [CIT V/S. MITHALAL 158 ITR 755 (MP) AND ACIT V/S. SAURAS HTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. 262 ITR 146 (GUJ)]. 6. YOUR HONOUR IS THEREFORE PRAYED TO RECALL / MODIFY THE ORDER. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION BEFORE US SHRI A.C.SHAH APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HIMSELF ALLOWED THE CREDIT OF RS.1 19 35 507/- AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WITHDRAWN THE SAME. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT WIT HDRAW WHAT THE AO HAS ALLOWED. IT AMOUNTS TO ENHANCEMENT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS CONTA INED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 251 THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT ENHANCE AN ASSESSMENT U NLESS THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF SHOWING CAUSE AGAINST SUC H ENHANCEMENT OR REJECTION. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINS A CERTIFICATE DATED 05.02.2008 ISSUED BY T HE MEHSANA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. WHICH READS AS UNDER: THE MEHSANA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. SCHEDULED BANK : HEAD OFRCE : URBAN BANK ROAD HIGHWAY MEHSANA-384 002. PH.:(02762) 251908 252681 FAX: (02762) 245206 CERTIFICATE THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT HYPOTHECATION A/C NO. 579 O F M/S. SUYOG SALES & MARKETING MEHSANA HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS NPA A/C W ITH EFFECT FROM 30-06-04 AND SINCE THEN NO INTEREST HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE SAID A/C. FURTHER CERTIFIED THAT INTEREST AMOUNT NOT DEBIT TO THE A/C FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01-04-04 TO 31-03-05 IS RS. 34 00 961/- AND THE SAME IS KEPT IN A SEPARATE LEDG ER. TOTAL OUT STANDING IN THE A/C INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST NOT DEBITED AS ON 31-03-05 IS RS. 29346848.25 (RS. TWO CRORE NINTY THREE LACS FORTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED F ORTY EIGHT AND PAISE TWENTY FIVE). THE STATEMENT SENT TO MEHSANA ITO INDICATING 2 93 4 6 848.25 WAS WITH INTEREST NOT DEBITED AS A/C IS NPA. THE MEHSANA URBAN CO.OP. BANK LTD; DATE : 05-02-2008 PLACE: MEHSANA SD/- MANAGER 5 M.A.NO. 235-AHD-2010 3.1 AFTER READING THE AFORESAID CERTIFICATE THE CO UNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS NOT REFERRED TH IS CERTIFICATE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.4 AT PARA 6 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN INTEREST AMOUNT OF RS.15 06 779/- IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS A/C. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INTEREST OF RS.34 00 961/- PAYABLE TO THE MEHSA NA URBAN CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD. ON HYPOTHECATION ACCOUNT. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION T O PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT FROM THE STATEMEN T OBTAINED FROM THE BANK THAT BANK HAS CHARGED INTEREST OF RS.34 00 961/- AS ON 31.03. 2005 BUT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEBITED THIS INTEREST. HE POINTED OUT THAT FROM THE CERTIFICATE DATED 05.02.2008 IT IS CLEAR THAT NO INTEREST HAS BEEN D EBITED TO THE A/C. FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.2004 TO 31.03.2005 BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF RS.3 4 00 961/- IS KEPT IN SEPARATE LEDGER. ON THIS BASIS THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT IN TEREST SHOULD BE PROVIDED. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 3.4 AT PAGE 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 14.02.2008 WHEREIN AFTER CONSIDER ING THIS MATTER THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE BORROWED FUNDS AND THE TRADE FUN DS HAVE MERGED IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN ITS POSSESSION INTEREST-FR EE FUNDS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN ADVANCED AS INTEREST-FREE FUNDS. HE POINTED OUT THA T INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.34 00 961/- NEITHER PROVIDED NOR CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 36(1)(III) IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) MISAPPRECIATED THE F ACTS AND THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE INSTEAD OF REMANDING IT TO THE F ILE OF THE AO. 3.2 CONTINUING HIS ARGUMENT THE COUNSEL OF THE ASS ESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE ENTIRE FACTS. THEREFORE TH E ORDER BE SUITABLE MODIFIED OR AMENDED. WITH REGARD TO REMANDING THE GROUND NO.2 THE LD. C OUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO GRIEVANCES AGAINST THIS GR OUND. 4. SHRI SUDHANSHU S. JHAH SR.D.R. APPEARING ON BE HALF OF THE REVENUE STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE AFORESAID PRAYER OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. SR.D.R. POINTED OUT THAT CERTIFICATE DATED 05.02.2008 WHICH IS FIL ED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE 3 OF THE 6 M.A.NO. 235-AHD-2010 PAPER BOOK WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. THIS IS EV IDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE DATE OF PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS 29.11.2007 WHEREAS C ERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEHSANA CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD. IS DATED 05.02.2008. ADMITTE DLY THIS WAS THE FRESH EVIDENCE WHICH WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE RELIEF OF RS.6 779/- HENCE ENHANCEMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T HE AO OBTAINED THE LOAN STATEMENT FROM THE BANK. FROM THE SAID LOAN STATEMENT THE AO NOTICED THAT THE BANK HAS CHARGED INTEREST OF RS.34 00 961/- AS ON 31.03.2005. THIS S TATEMENT IS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. THE CERTIFICATE DATED 05.02.2008 OBTAINED AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15 LAKHS OUT OF TOTAL INTEREST PAI D OF RS.15 06 779/-. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IT IS WELL-SETTLED LAW THAT THE TR IBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. IN THE GRAB OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO RE-OPEN AND RE-ARGUE THE WHOLE CASE AFRESH AS T HE SAME IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. THE LD. SR.D.R. FINAL LY SUBMITTED THAT BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING REVIEW AND SIN CE THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE REJECTED. 5. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES WE HAVE CAREFULLY G ONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THE BENCH HAS TAKEN CONSCIOUS DECISION TO REMAND BOTH THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE AO. FROM THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS RAISED BY BOTH THE SIDES BEFORE US WE ARE CONVINCED THAT BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION T HE ASSESSEE IS MERELY SEEKING REVIEW. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE CERTIFICATE DATED 05.02.20 08 OBTAINED FROM THE MEHSANA URBAN CO.OPERATIVE BANK LTD. WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN COMPLETED ON 29.10.2007. ON THE CONTRARY IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER THE AO HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT HE HAS OBTAINED A LOAN STATEMENT FRO M THE BANK WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED 7 M.A.NO. 235-AHD-2010 THAT THE BANK HAS CHARGED INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 34 00 961/- AS ON 31.03.2005. THIS FACT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED BY THE AO IN PARA 4 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED ON 29.10.07. 5.1. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KARAM CHAND THAPAR AND BROSS P. LTD. REPORTED IN 176 ITR 535 (SC) HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL FACTS WHICH APPEAR ON THE RECORD HAVE NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMENT. IN OUR OPINION THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD W ITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 254 (2). HOWEVER IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT WHAT CAN BE RE CTIFIED U/S. 254 (2) IS A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT AND PATENT FROM THE RECORD. UNLESS THER E ARE MANIFEST ERRORS WHICH ARE OBVIOUS CLEAR AND SELF-EVIDENT THE TRIBUNAL CANNO T RECALL ITS PREVIOUS ORDER IN AN ATTEMPT TO REVIEW THE ORDER. THE MISTAKE HAS TO BE SUCH FOR WHICH NO ELABORATE REASON OR ENQUIRY IS NECESSARY. THE POWERS SO CONFERRED U/S. 254 (2) DO NOT CONTEMPLATE REHEARING WHICH WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF RE-WRITING AN ORDER AFFECT ING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER TO REVIEW AND THE POWER TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE. THE POINT RAISED IN THE MISC. APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE VIRTUALLY SEEKS A REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL WHICH IS CLEARLY BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254 (2) OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. 2 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION WE ARE CO NVINCED THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE WITH THE PROPOSITION THAT POWER UNDER SUB-S ECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 IS TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD BUT THAT POWE R DOES NOT CLOTHE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW OF ITS EARLIER ORDER OR RE-W RITE A FRESH JUDGMENT. BY PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE IS VIRTUALL Y SEEKING REVIEW THEREFORE THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 2 * /01 3 4 16 / 09 /2011 0 5 * 6- 7 THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON 16/09/ 2011 . SD/- SD/- (A.N.PAHUJA) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16/09/2011 8 M.A.NO. 235-AHD-2010 * ** * &.% &.% &.% &.% 8%1. 8%1. 8%1. 8%1. / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. () / APPELLANT 2. &'() / RESPONDENT 3. . < / CONCERNED CIT 4. <- / CIT (A) 5. %@6 &. / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. 6C D2 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ E/ ' TALUKDAR/SR.P.S.