Sh. Vijay Sehgal, Jalandhar V. The Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar city

ITSSA 4/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1080 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Principle of natural justice; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T(SS).A NO.4(ASR)/2013 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.1985 TO 31.12.1995 PAN: AYCPS0474N SH. VIJAY SEHGAL 211, NEW JAWAHAR NAGAR JALANDHAR. VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. SANDEEP VIJH (C.A) RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 2 6.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT: 06.11.2015 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 8.8.2013. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF 330 SHARES MADE BY ASSESSEE DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD , WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE SALE ON SUCH CAPITAL GAINS WAS DULY DECLARED IN THE REGULAR INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH TO OK PLACE ON THE ASSESSEE ON 13.12.1995 AND ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE RETURN FOR BLOCK PERIOD STARTING FROM 1.4.1985 TO 13.12.1995. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED VIDE ASSE SSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.1996. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESS EE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE 2. IT(SS) A NO. 4(ASR)/2013 BLOCK PE RIOD FROM 1.4.1985 TO 31.12.1995 HONBLE ITAT AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.12.1998 GAVE CERTAIN RELIEFS TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAME ORDER, THE HON BLE ITAT DEALT WITH ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND VIDE PARA 45 OF ITS ORDER AND RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE OFFICE OF ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 45. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E LD. DR SO FAR AS THE OWNERSHIP OF SALE OF SHARES ARE CONCERNED, THE LENG THY DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE DURING THE HEARING OF THE CASE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT PLEADED THAT ALL THE SHARES OF M/S LEADER ENGG. WORKS DO NO T BELONG TO THE APPELLANT ALONE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL PLEADED THAT THE HAS NO OBJECTION FOR TAXING CAPITAL GAIN OUT OF SALE OF THE SHARES. BUT FOR THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS TO CALCULATE THE CAPITAL GAIN OF THE OWNERSHIP OF SHARES HELD BY SH. VIJAY SEHGAL, WHICH ARE 330 OF VIJAY SEHGAL, HUF AND REST OF THE LEGAL HEIR S OF LATE FATHER OF SH. VIJAY SEHGAL. THIS ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, REFERRED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WILL DECIDE AND LOOK INTO THE TAXABILITY OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AND ALSO THE PROPER AND LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES HELD BY SH . VIJAY SEHGAL AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. HE WILL ALSO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS ST ATED ABOVE AS TO WHEN THE SALE OF THE SHARES HAS TAKEN PLACE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WILL CALCULATE CAPITAL GAINS REGARDING THE SHARES HELD BY SH. VIJAY SEHGAL AND IN CASE SALE IS TAKEN PLACE DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD THE SAME WILL BE TAXE D IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. REGARDING CAPITAL GAINS OF OTHER SHARES-HOLDERS, HE CAN TAKE LEGAL ACTION AS HE DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF SALE PRICE IS CONCERNED SAME WILL BE TAKEN AT RS. 1,01,01,000/- I.E. CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH AS WELL AS BY CHEQUE . THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DIRECTION S OF HONBLE ITAT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER VIDE ORDER DATED 27 .03.2001 AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.5,60,566/- ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAI N ON SALE OF 330 SHARES. AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AP PEAL BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) 3. IT(SS) A NO. 4(ASR)/2013 BLOCK PE RIOD FROM 1.4.1985 TO 31.12.1995 AND LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION VIDE ITS OR DER DATED 16.01.2002. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) ARE CONTAINED I N PARA 4.2 WHICH ARE PRODUCED BELOW. 4.2 IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,20,37,520/- WAS DETERMINED BY A.O BY MAKING ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF ASSETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BUT THESE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED B Y HON,BLE ITAT ON THE BASIS THAT SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE ASSETS WAS SAL E CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF SHARES WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND THER EFORE ON PARA 45 OF ITS ORDER, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT FOR TAXING THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OTHER SHARES HOLDERS THE A. O. CAN TAKE LEGAL ACTION AS DEEMED FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE. THE OBVIOUS INFERENCE IS TO ASSESS THE GAIN THROUGH REGULAR ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASES OF THE SHARES HOLDERS, WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, IT WAS LEFT TO THE A.O TO TAX IT IN THE BLOCK PERIOD SUBJECT TO TH E DECISION OF THE ISSUE AS TO WHEN THE SALE OF THE SHARES HAS TAKEN PLACE. THE SA ID SALE OF SHARES THOUGH FALL IN THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SEPARATE RETURN WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPTED DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN SECTION 158BA(3) READ WITH SECTION 158BB(I)(D) OF I.T. ACT, A.O. ON THE BASIS OF THE BLOCK RETURN DID NOT TAX THE CAPITAL GAIN IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. I AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.5,60,566/- WAS NOT TO BE AGAIN TAXED AS HAVING BEEN ALREADY TAXED UNDER REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.5,60,566/- IS DELE TED. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEF ORE HONBLE ITAT AND HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15.06.2005 AGAIN RESTORED THE MATTER TO LEARNED CIT(A) BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 7.WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. IT APPEARS FROM THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FIND INGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE ON MERITS 4. IT(SS) A NO. 4(ASR)/2013 BLOCK PE RIOD FROM 1.4.1985 TO 31.12.1995 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT, AMR ITSAR BENCH VIDE PARA 45(SUPRA) WHICH WAS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER DATED 31 .12.1998. THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH WERE VERY SP ECIFIC AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WE DO NOT WANT TO COMMENT UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS IT MAY PREJUDI CE EITHER PARTY BUT WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE ORDER DATED 31.12.1998. THE CIT(A) DECIDED T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DIRECTIO NS OF THE ITAT, AMRITTSAR BENCH IN THE ORDER DATED 31.12.1998. WE, THEREFORE, FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR. WE, THEREFORE , ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION BY THE CIT (A). WE ACCORDINGLY SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE M ATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE A S WELL AS THE A.O AND SHALL DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STRICTLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBSERVATIONS AND DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT CONTAINED I N PARA 45 OF THE ORDER DATED 31.12.1998. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, AM RITSAR, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 8.8.2013 BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS MADE IN TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DIRECTIONS ON THE I SSUE UNDER REFERENCE AS CONTAINED IN ORDERS OF THE HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR B ENCH, AMRITSAR DATED 31.12.1998 AND 15.06.2005. AFTER CAREFULLY, EXAMINI NG AND ANALYZING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMR ITSAR. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADD ITIONS AS CONTAINED IN THEIR ORDER DATED 31.12.1998. AS PER DIRECTIONS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS GIVEN A VERY LIMITED TASK BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS TO 5. IT(SS) A NO. 4(ASR)/2013 BLOCK PE RIOD FROM 1.4.1985 TO 31.12.1995 DETERMINE THE DATE OF SALE AND THE PROPER AND OWNER SHIP OF 330 SHARES WHICH HE DID UNDOUBTEDLY. THE DETERMINATION OF THE DATE O F SALE OF SHARES AND DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OF SHARES HAS ALSO NOT B EEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE CLEAR AND UNAM BIGUOUS DIRECTIONS DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR AS CO NTAINED IN PARA 45 OF THEIR ORDER DATED 31.12.1998 REGARDING TAXABILITY OF CAPI TAL GAINS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA COURT BY WAY OF FILING ANY APPEAL. IT MEANS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR DATED 31.12. 1998 IN LETTER AND SPIRIT. 9. IN THE FACTS AS STATED ABOVE AND IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING HAS CORRE CTLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5,60,566/- WHICH REPRESENTS CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF 330 SHARES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO CORRECTLY BROUGHT IT TO TAX A S AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD BY FOLL OWING THE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT, AMRITSA R BENCH, AMRITSAR. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSE SSEE HAS AGAIN FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 3. AT THE OUT SET THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT DEC LARED THIS CAPITAL GAIN EARNED ON SALE OF 330 SHARES IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO COPY OF COMPUTATION PL ACED AT PAGE PAPER BOOK PAGE -9 AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE LEARNED AR SUB MITTED THAT THE TAXING OF THE SAME AMOUNT AGAIN IN THE BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMEN T HAS AMOUNTED TO DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME. HE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 HAD NO T FALLEN DUE AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAD RIGHTLY DECLARED THE INCOME ON SALE OF SHARES IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DECLARE THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF BLOCK PERIOD. INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO ORIGINAL AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY 6. IT(SS) A NO. 4(ASR)/2013 BLOCK PE RIOD FROM 1.4.1985 TO 31.12.1995 ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31.12.1996, THE LEARNED AR SUB MITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE SUCH ADDITION AND IT WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE ON OTHER ISS UES THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL GAVE DIRECTIONS TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO AS SESS SUCH CAPITAL GAIN. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW THAT A BENEFIT IS FIRST GIVEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND SAME IS WITHDRAWN LA TER ON. THE LEANED AR WAS ASKED BY THE BENCH AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD F ILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OR SOME MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AGAINST TH E ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AND TO WHICH LEARNED AR REPLIED IN NEGATIVE. HOWEVER, HE M AINTAINED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ONCE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A BENEFIT IT CANNOT BE TAKEN BACK. RELIANCE IN THIS R ESPECT WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. (I) MCORP GLOBAL P . LTD . VS. CIT (2009) 309 ITR . 434 (SC) (II) FORBES & CO. (P.) LTD.V/S. ACWIT DECIDED BY ITAT, M UMBAI. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IN ANY CASE ANY TAX CAN BE LEVIED ONLY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND AS PER LAW ASSESSEE HAD RIGHTLY DISCLOSED THE INCOME IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOM E TAX. 4. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL AS CONTAINED IN PARA 45 OF ITS ORI GINAL ORDER DATED 31.12.1998 ARE UNAMBIGUOUS AND ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE DIRECTIONS HAD RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION WHICH ORIGINALLY WAS DELE TED BY LEARNED CIT(A) BUT AGAIN HONBLE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE ISSUE TO CIT(A) FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER AND THEREFORE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE FOLLOWING T HE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE ITAT 7. IT(SS) A NO. 4(ASR)/2013 BLOCK PE RIOD FROM 1.4.1985 TO 31.12.1995 HAD RIGHTLY UPHELD ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. HE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE HONBLE ITAT HAS PASSED AN ORDER IT WILL STAY UNLESS THE ASSESSEE WENT IN FOR APPEAL AND IN THIS CASE NO APPEAL WAS PREFERRED . 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARITIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE DIRECTIONS CONTA INED IN PARA 45 OF ORDER OF ITAT DATED 31.12.1998 ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY HELD THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF 330 EQUITY SHARES HAS TO BE TAXED IN THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THEREFORE, THE LEARNE D CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE TRIBUNAL BEING THE FINA L FACT FINDINGS AUTHORITY, ITS FINDINGS IF NOT CHALLENGED IN THE HIGHER FORUM OR I N THE FORM OF A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ARE TREATED AS FINAL FINDINGS AND LEARN ED CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN OUR ORDER. THE ARGUMENT OF LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN ON SUCH SHARES IN REG ULAR RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE ON MERITS THE ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEE N MADE IN THE INCOME OF BLOCK PERIOD DOES NOT HOLD GROUND IN VIEW OF THE FA CT THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT CHALLENGED SUCH FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY AND NOW AT THIS STAGE THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER SPECIFICALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO MISTAKE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY LEARNE D AR THROUGH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVI EW ITS OWN ORDER EVEN IF IT IS SOUGHT TO BE REVIEWED THROUGH A RECTIFICATION PE TITION. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TAMILNADU SMALL INDUSTRIE S DEVELOPMENT 8. IT(SS) A NO. 4(ASR)/2013 BLOCK PE RIOD FROM 1.4.1985 TO 31.12.1995 CORPORATION LTD. TC (A)NO.156/2006 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21.08.2007 HAS 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 AGAINST THE A SSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THERE WA S NO NECESSITY WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. E VEN AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE COULD NOT FIND A SINGLE REASON IN THE WHOLE ORDER AS TO HOW THE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED AND FOR W HAT REASONS. THERE IS NO APPARENT ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THEREB Y THE TRIBUNAL SAT AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY OVER ITS OWN ORDER. IT IS COMPL ETELY IMPERMISSIBLE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS TRAVELED OUT OF ITS JURISDICTION TO AL LOW A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IN THE NAME 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 CONTEM PLATE REHEARING OF THE APPEAL FOR A FRESH DISPOSAL AND DOING SO, WOULD OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAKES AND POWER TO REVIEW THE O RDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 2 54(2) OF THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE REHEARING OF THE APPEAL FOR A FRESH DIS POSAL AND DOING SO, WOULD OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER OF REC TIFY THE MISTAKES AND POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SCOPE AN D AMBIT OF THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2) IS LIMITED AND NARROW. IT IS REST RICTED 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 NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SEC TION 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. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND THEREF ORE, APPEAL FILED BY THE 9. IT(SS) A NO. 4(ASR)/2013 BLOCK PE RIOD FROM 1.4.1985 TO 31.12.1995 ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL G AIN IN THE ASSESSMENT OF REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME TO AVOID DOUBLE TAXATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED:06.11.2015. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. VIJAY SEHGAL, JALANDHAR. 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE , JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.