CIT -II, Jaipur V. JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Jaipur

MA 10/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2818 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH VERMA DIT EXEMP; G K VERMA ACIT
• Assessee Lawyers: SHYAM LAL AGARWAL CA DH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 182/JP/2012) ASSTT. YEARS-.. THE D.I.T. (EXEMPTION) JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.N. MARG, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAFAS 3422 G VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI MUKESH VERMA (DIT EXEMP) & SHRI G.K. VERMA (ACIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VED JAIN (ADV) & SHRI SHYAM LAL AGARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26/02/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 /03/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AGAINST THE ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF ITAT, JAIPUR IN ITA NO. 182/JP/2012, WHICH WAS PASSED ON 30/09/2014. M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015_ CIT VS. JDA 2 2. THE LEARNED DIT (EXEMPTIONS) HAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR VIDE ORDER DATED 30/09/2014 HAD DIRECTED TO GRANT REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S JAIPUR DEV ELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR A.Y. 2009-10. ON CONSIDERATION OF FACTS DISCUSSED IN THE ABOVE SAID ORDER BY THE HONBLE ITAT, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR IN THE CASE OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AU THORITY HAS MISSED THE ATTENTION OF HONBLE MEMBERS. THE JUDGMENT OF IT AT AMRITSAR QUOTED BY THE LEARNED (DR) IN THE CASE OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT A UTHORITY IN ITA NO. 164/JAMMU/2012 HAS FOUND MENTION IN ITAT ORDER AT PA GE NO. 17 & 18 BUT NO DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE IN LIGHT OF ABOVE JUDGM ENT WHILE DECIDING THE CASE. THE LEARNED DR ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR IN THE CASE OF JAMMU DEVEL OPMENT AUTHORITY IN ITA NO. 164/2012 CMA MO. 2/2012 DATED 12.11.2013 WHE REIN THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT AMRITSAR WAS CONFIRMED IN FAVOUR OF REV ENUE. THIS ALSO APPEARS AT PAGE NO. 17 & 18 OF ITAT ORDER BUT IT REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASES OF JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ARE IDENTICAL WITH JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHO RITY AS DISCUSSED BELOW:- (A) THE OBJECTS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES ARE SIMILAR . M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015_ CIT VS. JDA 3 (B) THE ACTIVITIES OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES ARE SIMI LAR. (C) IN BOTH THE CASES REGISTRATION WAS EARLIER GRAN TED U/S 12A/12AA AND LATER ON THE SAME WAS WITHDRAWN U/S 12AA(3) IN VI EW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(15) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THUS AS THE FACTS IN BOTH THE CASES ARE IDENTICAL T HE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR WAS OUGHT TO BE CONSID ERED. IT NEEDS YOUR HOUNOURS KIND ATTENTION THAT THE SLP FILED BY THE A SSESSEE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WAS DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ORDE R IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 4990/2014 DATED 21/07/2014. THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT: WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO ENTERTAIN THIS PETITIO N. THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. THE ABOVE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED ON 21/07/2014 THUS IT BECAME LAW OF LAW IN RESPECT OF THESE ISSUES. THE HONBLE ITAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN THE CAS E OF JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY DID NOT CONSIDER THE ABOVE JU DGMENT OF APEX COURT IN ITS DECISION DELIVERED ON 30/09/2014 WHICH IS MUCH A FTER THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT. AS SUCH BY NOT CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT A MISTAKE OF LAW AND FACTS HAS OCCURRED. IT NE EDS YOU KIND ATTENTION THAT M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015_ CIT VS. JDA 4 ONCE THE SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 4990/20 14 IN THE CASE OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ON IDENTICAL ISSUES WAS DECIDE D BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ON 21/07/2014, IT BECAME LAW OF LAND A ND WAS OUGHT TO BE FOLLOWED IN ALL SUBSEQUENT CASES. BY NOT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT MUCH AFTER THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT A GREAT INJUSTICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS ARGUED THAT IT IS APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE ITAT AND IT IS PRAYED THAT FRESH JUDGMENT MAY BE DEL IVERED CONSIDERING THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ON IDENTI CAL ISSUE IN THE CASE OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (SUPRA). THE LEARNED DI T (EXEMPTION) RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. RALSON INDUSTRIES LTD. (2007) 288 ITR 322 (SC) AND ARGUED T HAT SUBORDINATE TRIBUNAL REFUSES TO CARRY OUT DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO IT BY A SU PERIOR TRIBUNAL IN EXERCISE OF APPEAL POWER, THE RESULT WILL BE CHAOS IN THE ADMINIS TRATION OF JUSTICE. IN THE CASE OF NOKIA CORPORATION VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) AND ANR. (2007) 292 ITR 22 (DEL.) WHEREIN THE PROPO SITION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IS THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISC IPLINE REQUIRE THAT THE ORDERS OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE FOLLO WED UNRESERVEDLY BY THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. VS . RAGHUBIR SINGH (DECD BY LIQUIDATOR)(1989) 178 ITR 548 (SC), THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR CONSTITUTION, M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015_ CIT VS. JDA 5 WHICH PREVENTS US FROM PARTING DEPARTING FROM A PREV IOUS DECISION IF WE ARE CONVINCED OF ITS ERROR AND ITS BANEFUL EFFECT ON TH E GENERAL INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC. DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) P. LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (1985) ITR 120 (SC) WHEREIN THE DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT DOES NOT COM PEL YOUR LORDSHIPS TO FOLLOWING THE WRONG PATH UNTIL YOU FALL OVER THE EDGE OF THE CLIFF. HERE WE FIND THAT THERE ARE OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHICH COMPE L US TO RECONSIDER AND REVIEW THE DECISION IN CLOTH TRADERS CASE AND IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. VALLABHDAS VITHALDAS (2002) 253 ITR 543(GUJ) WHEREIN THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ON PRONOUNCEMENT OF DECISION OF HIGHE ST COURT IS BINDING ON ALL COURTS, TRIBUNALS AND ALL AUTHORITIES IN VIEW OF ART. 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT AS PER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE HONBLE ITAT IS EMPOWE RED TO RECTIFY THE APPARENT MISTAKE UNDER THIS SECTION WITHIN FOUR YEAR S FROM THE DATE OF ORDER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAD DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON PAGE N O. 17 AND 18 OF ITAT ORDER ON FINDING GIVEN IN THE ORDER I.E. WE HAVE H EARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. FURTHER ON PAGE NO. 20, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL STATED THAT THE L EARNED DR AS WELL AS LEARNED AR CITED VARIOUS CASE LAWS AGAINST AND IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT RECENTLY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HAS HELD THAT MERE SELLING SOME PRODUCT A T PROFIT WILL NOT IPSO FACTO M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015_ CIT VS. JDA 6 HIT ASSESSEE BY APPLYING PROVISO TO SECTION 2(15) A ND DENY EXEMPTION AVAILABLE UNDER SECTION 11. THUS, HE ARGUED THAT THE HONBLE BENCH HAS CONSIDERED THE HONBLE JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. HE FURTHER RELIED ON T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT, CALCUTTA VS. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROTHERS PVT. LTD. (1989) 176 ITR 535 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL H AS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACES HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL OR WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL FACTS, WHICH APPEARS ON THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN I TS JUDGMENT. IN THE CASE OF V.T. SOMASUNDARAM VS. ITO (1999) 70 ITD 398 (CHENNAI), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EACH AND EVERY PAPER TO WHICH REFEREN CE WAS MADE OR ATTENTION DRAWN AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEA LS NEED NOT TO BE DISCUSSED IN THE ORDER. IN THE CASE OF PERFETTI VAN MELLE IN DIA (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 595 (DEL) WHEREIN IN HAS BEEN HELD THAT THI S SECTION ENABLES THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM THE RECORD. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS: (I) SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , HYDERABAD MA NO. 190/HYD/2012 IN MA NO. 7/HYD/2010- IN IT(SS)A N O. 104/HYD/2005 DATED 04 TH JULY, 2013. M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015_ CIT VS. JDA 7 (II) M/S JK PROMOTERS, SHEFALI VS. ITO WARD 1, M.A . NOS. 69 TO 72/AHD/2014 DATED 27/06/2014, (III) CIT VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC & TRADING CO. (1993) 2 03 ITR 497 (BOM). (IV) TS BALARAM, ITO, BOMBAY VS. VOLKART BROTHERS & OTHERS (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) (V) ACIT RAJKOT VS. SAURASHTRA KUTCH STOCK EXCHANGE LTD. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC). (VI) CIT VS. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (2007) 293 ITR 118 (DEL.) (VII) EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD. V. DY.CIT (2010) 320 I TR 12 (MAD.) (VIII) CIT VS. VARDHMAN SPINNING (1997) 226 ITR 296 (P&H). VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LEARNED AR HAVE NOT BEEN DEALT WITH AND VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY HIM NOT CONSIDERED. THE LEARNED A.R. WITHOUT PREJUDICED SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF REV ENUE THAT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE A JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON SAME ISSUE AND THIS TRIBUNAL IGNORED THAT OR DISTINGUISHED THE SAME WITHO UT GIVING ANY REASONS. THIS IS THE CASE WHERE TWO JUDGMENTS OF NON-JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE BROUGHT INTO THE NOTICE OF THIS H ONBLE TRIBUNAL FIRST THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE O F LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND SECOND BY THE HONBLE JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL BROUGHT BOTH THE M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015_ CIT VS. JDA 8 JUDGMENTS ON RECORD, WHICH WERE PLACED ON PAGE NO. 13 AND 17 OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT RESPECTIVELY. FURTHER ANY JUDGMEN T OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON SIMILAR ISSUE WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THAT TIM E. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED BOTH THE CASES AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSIO N AS UNDER:- (D) THE DECISION OF ONE HIGH COURT IS NEITHER BIND ING PRECEDENT FOR ANOTHER HIGH COURT NOR FOR COURTS OR TRIBUNALS O UTSIDE ITS OWN TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT TH E DECISION OF A HIGH COURT WILL HAVE THE FORCE OF BINDING PRECEDENT ONLY IN THE STATE OR TERRITORIES ON WHICH THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION. IN OTHER STATES OR OUTSIDE THE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THAT HIGH C OURT IT MAY, AT BEST, HAVE ONLY PERSUASIVE EFFECT. BY NO AMOUNT OF STRETC HING OF THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS, CAN JUDGMENTS OF ONE HIG H COURT BE GIVEN THE STATUS OF A BINDING PRECEDENT SO FAR AS OTHER H IGH COURTS OR COURTS OR TRIBUNALS WITHIN THEIR TERRITORIAL JURISDI CTION ARE CONCERNED. ANY SUCH ATTEMPT WILL GO COUNTER TO THE VERY DOCTRIN E OF STARE DECISIS AND ALSO THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT WHICH HAVE INTERPRETED THE SCOPE AND AMBIT THEREOF. THE FACT THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE DECISION OF ANY ONE HIGH COURT ON A PARTICULAR POINT OR THAT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS HAV E TAKEN IDENTICAL VIEWS IN THAT REGARD IS NOT AT ALL RELEVANT FOR THAT PURPOSE. WHATEVER MAY BE THE CONCLUSION, THE DECISIONS CANNO T HAVE THE FORCE OF BINDING PRECEDENT ON OTHER HIGH COURTS OR ON ANY SUBORDINATE COURTS OR TRIBUNALS WITHIN THEIR JURISDIC TION. THAT STATUS IS RESERVED ONLY FOR THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015_ CIT VS. JDA 9 WHICH ARE BINDING ON ALL COURTS IN THE COUNTRY BY VI RTUE OF ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION. THUS, THERE WERE TWO DIFFERENT VIEWS TAKEN BY THE TWO H IGH COURTS, HENCE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE. THIS HONBL E TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED ONE AND THIS CANNOT BE SAID MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS:- (I) CIT VS. VED PARKASH (1989) 178 ITR 332 (P&H). (II) STATE OF A.P. V. CTO (1988) 169 ITR 564 (A.P.) (IV) CIT VS. MOHAN LAL KANSAL (1978) 114 ITR 583 (P &H) (V) SURESH DESAI & ASSOCIATES VS. CIT (1998) 230 ITR 912. LEARNED A.R. FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT DISMISSED THE SLP (C) NO. 4990/2014 DATED 21/07/2014. IT IS ARGUE D THAT THE CERTAIN PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT DISMISSAL OF SLP IN LIMINE B Y THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE REASONING OF THE JUDGM ENT OF HIGH COURT AGAINST WHICH THE SLP HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THIS COURT STAND S AFFIRMED OR THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER IMPUGNED MERGES WITH SUCH ORDER O F THIS COURT ON DISMISSAL OF THE PETITION. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THI S COURT DID NOT CONSIDER THE CASE WORTH EXAMINING FOR THE REASON, WHICH MAY BE OT HER THAN MERIT OF THE CASE. NOR SUCH AN ORDER OF THIS COURT OPERATES AS R ES JUDICATA. AN ORDER REJECTING THE SLP AT THE THRESHOLD WITHOUT DETAILED REASONS THEREFORE DOES NOT M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015_ CIT VS. JDA 10 CONSTITUTE ANY DECLARATION OF LAW OR A BINDING PRECE DENT, FOR WHICH HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- (I) KUNHAYAMMED AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC) (II) VM SALGAOCAR AND BROS. PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2000 ) 243 ITR 383 (SC) (III) SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AIR 1990 S.C. 334, (1989) 4 SCC 187 (AT PAGE 344 OF AIR 1990 S.C.). THE LEARNED A.R. FURTHER ARGUED THAT AS PER SECTION 254(2), THE HONBLE ITAT IS EMPOWERED TO RECTIFY THE APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECO RD. THERE IS NO POWER TO REVIEW THE OWN DECISION, FOR WHICH HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- (I) CIT VS. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES (P) LTD. (2007) 293 ITR 163 (DEL.) (II) MRS. SABITA SHARMA VS. ITO (ITA NO. 788/2007) DATED 18 TH MARCH 2014) (KARN.) THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED TO DISMISS THE M.A. FILED BY THE REVENUE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THIS CASE WAS HEARD ON 12/08/2014 AND KEPT FOR ORDER. HOWEVER, ON 20/08/2014, THE LEARNED CIT DR HAD INFORMED THAT THERE IS A LATEST DECISION ON THIS IDENTICAL I SSUE OF THE APPELLANT IN CASE OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY THE HONBLE JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT. M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015_ CIT VS. JDA 11 THEREFORE, THIS BENCH HAS DECIDED TO REFIX THE CASE FOR HEARING TO GIVE THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELL ANT ON RECENT CASE OF JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. THE CASE WAS REFIXED FOR HEARING ON 16/10/2014 BUT SAME WAS PREPONED ON THE REQUEST OF A R FOR 08/09/2014. FINALLY THE CASE WAS HEARD ON 18/09/2014. AS THIS BE NCH HAS ALREADY GIVEN DETAILED FINDING ON DECISION DELIVERED IN JAMMU DEV ELOPMENT AUTHORITY, IN ITS ORDER, HAD CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT BUT AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER ITSELF, THERE WERE SEVERAL DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT AND AG AINST THE APPELLANT BUT THE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEES M.A. IS FILED ON THE BASIS OF SLP REJECTED BY THE HON'BLE S UPREME COURT BUT AS ARGUED BY THE AR FOR THE APPELLANT THAT THE SLP IS AN ORDE R NOT A JUDGMENT. FURTHER, THE VARIOUS REASONS MAY BE THERE TO REJECT THE SLP AND THIS SLP HAS NOT DECIDED ON MERIT, WHICH CANNOT BE TAKEN AS PRECEDENT OR BINDING ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT TO THE LOWER COURT AS HELD IN CASE OF KUNHAYAMMED AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER, VM SALG AOCAR AND BROS. PVT. LTD. VS. CIT AND SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIA TION VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA). THIS COURT HAS ONLY POWER U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT TO RECTIFY THE APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY PO WER TO REVIEW ITS OWN DECISION ON SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE M.A. FILED BY THE REVENUE. M.A. NO. 10/JP/2015_ CIT VS. JDA 12 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE REV ENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/03/3015. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 04 TH MARCH, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE CIT (EXEMPTION), JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE J.D.A., JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (M.A. 10/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR