Quality Steel Tubes Ltd. (Now Premier Pipes Ltd.), Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax-V, Kanpur

MA 111/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2833 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUNIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GARG; P K KAPOOR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.111/LKW/2014 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.766/LKW/2013] ASSESSMENT YEARS:2003-04 QUALITY STEEL TUBES LTD. (NOW PIPES LTD.) KANPUR V. DY. CIT RANGE V KANPUR PAN:AAACQ0251E (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: SHRI. S. K. GARG, ADVOCATE & SHRI. P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. PUNIT KUMAR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 13 02 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11 03 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PREFERRED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 7.3.2014 IN I.T.A. NO. 766/LKW/2013, WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED CERTAIN FACTUAL AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THEREFORE, AN ERROR IS CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH CALLS FOR RECTIFICATION. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BESIDES EXPLAINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE OF GOODS FOR A SUM OF RS.17,989,142/- FROM :- 2 -: M/S J.S. JAIN AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. (SHAMILY PARTY) IN A PROPER MANNER AND HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE THIRD PARTY I.E. M/S J.S. JAIN AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. (SHAMILY PARTY), BUT HE WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THESE ASPECTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS. THE PLEA OF NON- MAINTAINABILITY OF THE ADDITION OWING TO NON-APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 69B OF THE ACT HAS BEEN RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO AND WITH THE SUPPORT OF MATERIAL INFORMATION ALREADY ON RECORD, BUT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE SPECIFIC PLEA WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS WRONGLY SHIFTED THE ONUS UPON THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT BY UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER IN SUPPORT OF ITS DENIAL OF MAKING PURCHASES FROM SHAMLI PARTY. A LETTER DATED 10.3.2006 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT PROPERLY BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE ON NON-CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL, AN ERROR HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER, WHICH CALLS FOR RECTIFICATION BY RECALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED COMPLETE FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE GIVEN FACTS AND SINCE NO :- 3 -: INFIRMITY WAS FOUND IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE SAME. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL VIS--VIS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS WITH REGARD TO THE DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.17,98,142.70 AS ON 31.3.2003 RECEIVABLE FROM M/S JAIN AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD (JSJAI). IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED JSJAI TO FURNISH COPY OF ACCOUNT AND IN RESPONSE THERETO COPY OF ACCOUNT WAS FURNISHED BY JSJAI IN WHICH DEBIT BALANCE WAS SHOWN AT RS.899.30 LAKHS. THESE FACTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED REPLY, WHICH WERE AGAIN CONFRONTED TO JSJAI. WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE JSJAI AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO TAKEN A NOTE OF THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IF THE DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.17,98,142.70 IN THE NAME OF JSJAI AS ON 31.3.2002 WAS NOT SQUARED UP BY THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM JSJAI, AS TO HOW THIS AMOUNT WAS RECOVERED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM JSJAI. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO EXPLAIN, BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS FILED AS TO WHY THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT RECOVERED FROM JSJAI. THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THESE FACTS WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE DEBIT BALANCE SHOWN AS ON 31.3.2003 AND TILL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 7.3.2014, AND NOTED THAT NO EFFORT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECOVER THE SAID AMOUNT FROM JSJAI IF IT HAS NOT PURCHASED H.R. COILS FROM JSJAI. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES AND AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THESE FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWING DEBIT :- 4 -: BALANCE IN THE NAME OF JSJAI IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NO PURCHASE WAS SHOWN IN ITS ACCOUNT, THE PURCHASES MADE BY IT AS PER STATEMENT OF JSJAI IS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IN WHICH THE INVESTMENT MADE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR WHICH ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PARTIES RECORDED IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- 4. THE BRIEF FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE LIST OF DEBTORS AND CREDITORS GIVING THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT/BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2003 RECEIVABLE FROM THE DEBTORS AND PAYABLE TO THE CREDITORS. A SUM OF RS. 17,98,142.70 WAS SHOWN AS DEBIT BALANCE I.E. RECEIVABLE FROM JSJAI. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED JSJAI TO FURNISH COPY OF ACCOUNT AND IN RESPONSE THERETO JSJAI HAS FURNISHED COPY OF ACCOUNTS WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- DOCUMENT DATE DOCUMENT NUMBER NARRATION DEBIT CREDIT RUNNING BALANCE QST LTD., KANPUR OPENING BALANCE 17,98,142.70 CR. 02 MAY 2002 SAL 02052002 5 TO INVOICE NO.102 3,95,181 14,02,001.70 CR. 07 MAY 2002 SAL 07052002 3 TO INVOICE NO.113 4,20,811 9,82,150.70 CR. 02 MAY 2002 SAL 12052002 7 TO INVOICE NO.119 4,18,828 5,63,322.70 CR. 14 MAY 2002 SAL 14052002 2 TO INVOICE NO.125 2,85,884 2,77,438.70 CR. 15 MAY 2002 SAL 15052002 2 TO INVOICE NO.127 2,78,338 899.30 DR. TOTAL/CLOSING BALANCE 17,99,042 899.30 R. :- 5 -: 5. FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAS PURCHASED GOODS FOR A SUM OF RS. 17,99,042 ON DIFFERENT DATES AS MENTIONED ABOVE. A COPY OF THE LETTER AND COPY OF ACCOUNT RECEIVED FROM JSJAI HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE THERETO THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY GOODS FROM JSJAI. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, A LETTER DATED 20.1.2006 WAS WRITTEN TO JSJAI AND THE FACT AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INTIMATED AND JSJAI WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE PHOTOCOPY OF INVOICES AND NECESSARY EVIDENCE REGARDING TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS AND RECEIPTS AND DISPATCH OF GOODS. CONSEQUENT THERETO, JSJAI VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 24.2.2006 HAS FURNISHED THE COPY OF BILLS AND COPY OF TRANSPORT RECEIPTS ISSUED BY M/S DEEP GOODS CARRIER, RAILWAY ROAD, SHAMLI. THE PHOTOCOPIES OF LETTER DATED 24.2.2006 AND COPIES OF BILLS AND TRANSPORT RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 28.2.2006 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE AMOUNT OF SALE MADE BY THE ABOVE PARTY TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BEING UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF ITS DIRECTOR, SHRI. S. S. AGARWAL DISPUTING THE SALES MADE BY JSJAI TO IT (THE ASSESSEE), BUT HE HAS NOT FILED ANY CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT OF JSJAI AS APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE PURCHASES MADE FROM JSJAI AND SUBSEQUENT SALES THEREOF ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 17,99,042 TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE AND A SUM OF RS. 1,79,904 BEING 10% OF RS. 17,99,042 AS PROFIT, WAS ALSO ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION STATING THEREIN THAT THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE TESTED THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION AND ALSO REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUMMON THE RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR OF JSJAI FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION, BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE :- 6 -: THE RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR OF JSJAI. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) RE-EXAMINED THE ENTIRE ISSUE BUT WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS SHOWN DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 17,98,142.70 IN THE NAME OF JSJAI AS ON 31.3.2002. BUT TILL CONCLUSION OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), NO EVIDENCE WAS PLACED WITH REGARD TO THE RECOVERY OF THE SAID AMOUNT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE PURCHASE FROM JSJAI IN ORDER TO SQUARE UP THE ACCOUNT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTION OF A.O. & REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE, FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGE. 1. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE HAD MADE NO PURCHASE FROM M/S J.S. JAIN AGRO & THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DUE FROM THEM & THEY HAVE WRONGLY REVERSED THE ENTRY BY SHOWING SALE TO THEM. 2. ASSESSEE HAS POINTED SEVERAL DISCREPANCIES IN THE BILLS TO INDICATE THE SALE WAS NOT GENUINE. 3. ASSUMING THAT IF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRUE THEN THIS IS A FRAUD PERPETUATED BY J.S. JAIN AGRO & THE ASSESSEE SHOULD ATLEAST HAVE FILED AN FIR OR COURT CASE TO CLAIM HIS MONEY. NO SUCH THING HAS BEEN DONE TILL DATE. 4. NOT OVEN THAT, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SHOW A LETTER OR PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ITSELF & J.S.JAIN AGRO WHEREIN HE HAS OBJECTED TO THIS ADJUSTMENT BILL RAISED BY; J.S. JAIN AGRO. 5. THIS TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE IN F.Y. 2002-03 & IT HAS BEEN MORE THAN 10 YEARS & APPARENTLY ASSESSEE HAS MADE NO EFFORT TO RECOVER THE PAYMENT FROM M/S J.S. JAIN AGRO. :- 7 -: 6. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME, I ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO ISSUE LETTER TO M/S J.S. JAIN AGRO DISPUTING THIS AMOUNT AND TO GIVE A COPY OF SAME TO ME. EVEN THIS WAS DECLINED BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY. 7. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ITS PART DID NOT DO ANYTHING TO DISPUTE THE AMOUNT WITH THE PARTY AT THAT POINT OF TIME OR DURING LAST 10 YEARS OR EVEN DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 8. THE ONLY CONCLUSION THAT CAN BE DRAWN FROM THIS CONDUCT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RAISING A BOGEY OF FALSE BILL BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT DISPUTING THE SAME WITH THE PARTY WHO IS ACTUALLY SHOWING THE SALE. THUS, THIS CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE HOLDS NO GROUND. 9. I THEREFORE FIND NO MERIT IN CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE & APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 8. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND REITERATED ITS CONTENTIONS. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE CORRESPONDENCE EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE LETTER DATED 10.3.2006 OF THE ASSESSEE WRITTEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN WHICH A SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE TO ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR OF JSJAI TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE TRANSACTION ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. DESPITE A SPECIFIC REQUEST, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ALLOWED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON OF JSJAI. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI. S. S. AGARWAL, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY STATING THEREIN THAT THE COMPANY HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY GOODS FROM JSJAI NOR SOLD ANY GOODS DURING THE YEAR 2002-03 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO JSJAI. :- 8 -: 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT AND THE DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE THIRD PARTY, THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF THAT EVIDENCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE SALES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ACCEPTED IN THE VAT ASSESSMENTS. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT NO SALES WERE MADE TO THE ASSESSEE AS SHOWN BY JSJAI IN ITS STATEMENT DURING THE PERIOD 2.5.2002 TO 15.5.2002. 10. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED, BESIDE PLACING HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT/BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2003 RECEIVABLE FROM THE DEBTORS AND PAYABLE TO THE CREDITORS AND IN THE DETAILS HE HAS SHOWN DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 17,98,142.70 RECEIVABLE FROM JSJAI. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED ALLEGED GOODS FROM JSJAI, THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH AS TO HOW AND WHEN IT HAS RECOVERED THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT FROM JSJAI AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY IT AS ON 31.3.2003. TILL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON 12.9.2013, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH AS TO HOW AND WHEN THE AFORESAID OUTSTANDING AMOUNT WAS RECOVERED FROM JSJAI. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT IS NOT A SMALL AMOUNT WHICH CAN BE IGNORED BY ANY BUSINESSMAN. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED THE ALLEGED GOODS FROM JSJAI, AN EFFORT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO RECOVER THE AFORESAID OUTSTANDING AMOUNT FROM JSJAI. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THESE FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED OBJECTIONS ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF OBJECTION WITHOUT DISCHARGING THE ONUS TO PROVE AS TO HOW THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS RECOVERED IF HE HAS NOT PURCHASED GOODS FROM JSJAI AS SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT FILED BY JSJAI. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED THAT JSJAI HAS MANIPULATED ITS ACCOUNTS, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT LODGED ANY PROTEST EITHER TO JSJAI OR LODGED ANY COMPLAINT AGAINST IT WITH ANY AUTHORITIES. UNDER THESE :- 9 -: CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD AND THE DOCUMENTS PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FILED THE LIST OF DEBTORS AND CREDITORS VIDE THEIR REPLY DATED 30.5.2005 IN WHICH A SUM OF RS. 17,98,142.70 WAS SHOWN AS DEBIT BALANCE RECEIVABLE FROM JSJAI AS ON 31.3.2003. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED JSJAI TO FURNISH THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNTS IN THIS REGARD. CONSEQUENTLY COPY OF ACCOUNTS WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREFROM IT IS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS. 17,98,142.70 WAS SQUARED UP BY MAKING SALES THROUGH VARIOUS INVOICES DURING THE PERIOD 2.5.2002 TO 15.5.2002 FOR A SUM OF RS. 17,99,042 AND DEBIT WAS SHOWN AT RS. 899.30 AS ON 31.3.2003 IN THE BOOKS OF JSJAI. THESE FACTS WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RESPONSE THERETO, IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT HAS NOT MADE ANY PURCHASE FROM JSJAI AS SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT FILED BY JSJAI. ON RECEIPT OF THIS INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER CONFRONTED THESE FACTS TO JSJAI AND JSJAI WAS ASKED TO FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE ABOUT RECEIPT OF GOODS AND THE DETAILS OF TRANSPORT BY WHICH THE GOODS HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED, VIDE LETTER DATED 20.1.2006. IN RESPONSE THERETO JSJAI HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF INVOICES ALONG WITH TRANSPORT RECEIPTS OF M/S DEEP GOODS CARRIER, RAILWAY ROAD, SHAMLI IN ORDER TO PROVE THE SALES DECLARED IN ITS STATEMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 24.2.2006. ALL THESE FACTS COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM JSJAI WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 28.2.2003 AND A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED TO IT. INSTEAD OF FURNISHING ANY CONFIRMATION FROM JSJAI, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ALONG WITH LETTER CONTENDING THEREIN THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY PURCHASE FROM JSJAI. THROUGH THIS LETTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR OF JSJAI. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS GOING TO BE TIME BARRED, :- 10 -: THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 17.3.2006. 12. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT DID NOT FILE ANY CONFIRMATION FROM JSJAI WITH REGARD TO THE DEBIT BALANCE SHOWN IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ON 31.3.2003. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE A SUM OF RS. 17,98,142.70 WAS THE DEBIT BALANCE AS ON 31.3.2003 AND IT REMAINED THE SAME TILL DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO RECOVER THE SAID AMOUNT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY VALID EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO RECOVER THE AFORESAID AMOUNT, IF HE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY GOODS THROUGH INVOICES AS DISCLOSED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF JSJAI DURING THE PERIOD 2.5.2002 TO 15.5.2002. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED TECHNICAL OBJECTION TO THE EVIDENCES COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT AFTER COLLECTING THE EVIDENCE FROM JSJAI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMMEDIATELY CONFRONTED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO AFFORD AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE RESPONSIBLE DIRECTOR OF JSJAI BUT HE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO OBTAIN THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM JSJAI OR TO ASK HIM AS TO WHY HE HAS SHOWN SALES IN ITS NAME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IF JSJAI HAS DONE MISCHIEF WITH THE ASSESSEE OR HAS COMMITTED ANY FRAUD BY SHOWING WRONG SALES IN ITS NAME, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN SOME CRIMINAL COMPLAINT OR FIR AGAINST JSJAI. BUT NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST JSJAI. EVEN TILL FINAL HEARING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS TO HOW AND WHEN HE HAS RECOVERED THE OUTSTANDING DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 17,98,142.70 FROM JSJAI NOR DID HE CLAIM IT TO BE AS BAD DEBT IF HE FAILED TO RECOVER IT FOR ANY REASON. ALL THESE FACTS SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES AS DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF JSJAI OUT OF ITS BOOKS OF :- 11 -: ACCOUNT AND MADE SALE THEREOF AND EARNED PROFIT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWING DEBIT BALANCE IN THE NAME OF JSJAI IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND NO PURCHASE WAS SHOWN IN ITS ACCOUNT, THE PURCHASES MADE BY IT AS PER STATEMENT OF JSJAI IS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IN WHICH THE INVESTMENT MADE IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR WHICH ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE PROFIT EARNED THEREON ON ITS SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 13. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROPERLY EXAMINED THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE GIVEN FACTS AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 14. THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT IS LIMITED AND ONLY THOSE ERRORS WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED. 15. THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY EXAMINED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN RECTIFY ONLY THOSE MISTAKES WHICH ARE ARITHMETICAL OR CLERICAL OR APPARENT IN ITS ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER UNDER THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT IF THE TRIBUNAL COMMITS AN ERROR OF JUDGEMENT, THAT ERROR CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT AS THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT EMPOWERED BY THE STATUTE TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VARDHMAN SPINNING; 226 ITR 296 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAVE HELD IN SPECIFIC TERMS THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS CREATION OF STATUTES AND IT CAN EXERCISE ONLY THOSE POWERS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONFERRED UPON IT. THE ONLY POWER CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW OR MODIFY ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH ON THE BASIS OF :- 12 -: SUPPOSED INHERENT RIGHTS. U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AFTER HEARING THE CONTESTING PARTIES, CAN PASS SUCH ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT. SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THE DATE OF AN ORDER TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD EITHER SUO MOTO OR ON AN APPLICATION MADE . WHAT CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION IS A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT AND PATENT. THE MISTAKE HAS TO BE SUCH FOR WHICH NO ELABORATE REASONS OR INQUIRY IS NECESSARY. WHERE TWO OPINIONS ARE POSSIBLE, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. 16. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUMAN TEA AND PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD., 226 ITR 34 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAVE EXPRESSED SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS AFTER HOLDING THAT UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, AN ORDER, WHICH HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL REACHES FINALITY THE MOMENT THE SAME IS PASSED; CANNOT BE TOUCHED THEREAFTER. BY SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO RECTIFY MISTAKES IN ITS ORDERS, WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS. THE EXPRESSION `MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MEANS A MISTAKE EITHER CLERICAL OR GRAMMATICAL OR ARITHMETICAL OR OF LIKE NATURE, WHICH CAN BE DETECTED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY NECESSITY TO RE-ARGUE THE MATTER OR TO RE-APPRAISE THE FACT AS APPEARING FROM THE RECORDS. IN ANOTHER CASE CIT VS. GOLAL CHAND AGARWAL; 202 ITR 14 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAVE ALSO HELD THAT SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER PASSED U/S 254(1) TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD EITHER SUO MOTO OR ON AN APPLICATION. IF IN ITS ORDER THERE IS NO MISTAKE WHICH IS PATENT AND OBVIOUS ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD, THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) WILL BE ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER. AN OVERSIGHT OF THE FACT CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 254(2). THIS MIGHT, AT THE WORST, LEAD TO :- 13 -: PERVERSITY OF THE ORDER FOR WHICH THE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER SECTION 254(2) BUT A REFERENCE PROCEEDINGS U/S 256. THE NORMAL RULE IS THAT THE REMEDY BY WAY OF REVIEW IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE AND UNLESS CLOTHED WITH SUCH POWER BY THE STATUTE, NO AUTHORITY CAN EXERCISE THE POWER. 17. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITAT; 143 CTR 446 HAS HELD THAT SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 254 CONFERS AMPLE POWERS ON THE TRIBUNAL TO PASS SUCH ORDERS IN ANY APPEAL FILED BEFORE IT AS IT THINKS FIT. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 POSTULATES THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SEC. (1) OF SECTION 254 WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFERRED BY SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 FOR RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD CANNOT BE EXERCISED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SECTION 254(2). FURTHER, REVIEWING AND RECALLING AN ORDER IS ONE THING AND RECTIFYING A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS QUITE ANOTHER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION FOR REVIEW BY TRIBUNAL, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE RECALLED OR REVIEWED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254 WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF M.P. IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH CHAND MEHTA VS. CIT; 220 ITR 277 IN WHICH THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE HELD THAT SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IS VERY LIMITED AND IT IS ONLY THE APPARENT ERROR WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED. 18. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T.S. BALARAM ITO VS. VOLKART BROTHERS; 82 ITR 50 (SC) HAVE HELD THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE FURTHER HELD THAT IF A STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON HAS BEEN :- 14 -: RECORDED WITHOUT PRODUCING HIM IN THE WITNESS BOX, THE AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT ACT UPON THAT STATEMENT WITHOUT AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS, BUT THAT IS A MATTER NOT FOR RECTIFICATION BUT IT IS A MATTER RELATING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS TO WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL HAS GONE WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT OF A PARTICULAR PERSON AND HAS ACTED UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE SAME PERSON WHICH WAS RECORDED BY THE ITO WITHOUT BEING PERMITTED TO CROSS EXAMINE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOT A MATTER IN WHICH THE APPARENT ERROR IS INVOLVED BUT IT IS A MATTER MORE OF MERIT AND CANNOT BE RECTIFIED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION. THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE MAKING A RECTIFICATION WERE AGAIN EXAMINED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HERO CYCLES PVT. LTD.; 228 ITR 463 IN WHICH THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT RECTIFICATION CAN ONLY BE MADE WHEN A GLARING MISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW COMMITTED BY THE OFFICER PASSING THE ORDER BECOMES APPARENT FROM RECORD. RECTIFICATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IF THE QUESTION IS DEBATABLE. MOREOVER, A POINT WHICH WAS NOT EXAMINED ON FACTS OR IN LAW CANNOT BE DEALT WITH AS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. ITAT; 229 ITR 651 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF PATNA HIGH COURT HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED A SIMILAR OBSERVATION AFTER HOLDING THAT SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING A MISTAKE FROM RECORD. HOWEVER, SECTION 254(2) DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS ORDER OR TO SIT IN APPEAL OVER ITS EARLIER ORDER. IF IT IS DONE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO AN AMENDMENT OF AN EARLIER ORDER WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, BUT IT WOULD BE AN ORDER PASSED ON REAPPRAISAL OF THE MATERIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON A FRESH APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL POSITION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 19. IN THE CASE OF MS. DEEKSHA SURI VS. ITAT; 232 ITR 395 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF DELHI HIGH COURT HAVE HELD IN SPECIFIC TERMS THAT THE INCOME- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE. IT HAS NOT BEEN VESTED :- 15 -: WITH THE REVIEW JURISDICTION BY THE STATUTE CREATING IT. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN JUDGEMENTS OR ORDERS. THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE COURTS MAY OPEN OR VACATE THEIR JUDGEMENTS ARE GENERALLY MATTERS WHICH RENDER THE JUDGEMENT VOID OR WHICH ARE SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTES AUTHORIZING SUCH SECTIONS. THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IS CLEAR. THE FOUNDATION FOR THE EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION IS WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD AND THE OBJECT IS ACHIEVED BY AMENDING ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT. A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD. 20. SIMILAR VIEWS HAVE ALSO BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRAHLAD RAI TODI 251 ITR 833 BY HOLDING THAT A BARE LOOK AT SECTION 254(2) WILL SHOW THAT THIS SECTION GIVES THE POWER TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT AND TO MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE ASSESSEE. SO, WHEN WE SPEAK OF AMENDMENT OR RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE THE EARLIER ORDER CAN NEVER BE RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE EARLIER ORDER MUST HOLD THE FIELD AND THE MISTAKE CAN BE RECTIFIED OR AMENDED CAN BE MADE TO THE ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT, IN LAW AND FACTS, RECALL AND DESTROY ITS FINAL ORDER AS A WHOLE WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY THE SAME ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL ACTUALLY AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF ITS EARLIER ORDER AND THAT POWER TO REVIEW IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL. 21. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED ALL THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL MINOR DETAILS AND THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT :- 16 -: RE-APPRECIATION OF FACTS THROUGH ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW, WE FIND NO ERROR APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 22. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:11 TH MARCH, 2015 JJ:2302 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR