IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO.125/M/2016 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.596/M/2011 DATE OF DECISION: 10.09.2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S. RAJHANS METALS PVT. LTD., 3, SHILEY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, UDYOG NAGAR, S.V. ROAD, GOREGAON (WEST), MUMBAI 400 062 PAN: AAACR5424Q VS. THE ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 9(3), MUMBAI - 400020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GIRISH DAVE, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI V. TRIPATHI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 07.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.10.2016 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: PRESENT IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEARING ITA NO.596/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BEARING ITA NO.1065/M/20 11 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.09.2014; THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL HAD TA KEN FIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IN THE FIRST FOUR GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAD AGITATE D THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT WHERE AS IN THE GROUND NO.5, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE ADDITION OF RS.3,43,51,58 5/- ON ACCOUNT OF G.P. MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER CONFIRMED BY T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UP TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,06,77 ,484/-. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ONLY DECIDED THE FIRST FOUR GROUNDS AND GROUND NO.5 INAD VERTENTLY HAS REMAINED UNADJUDICATED. MA NO.125/M/2016 M/S. RAJHANS METALS PVT. LTD. 2 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPE AL BEARING ITA NO.596/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 144 IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN MAKING EX- PARTE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 AND THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HA S IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO APPL Y HIS BEST JUDGMENT WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S. 144. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S. 145(3) AND THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 5. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON FACTS IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,43,51,585/- ON ACCOUNT OF G.P. AND THE HONBLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,06,77 ,484/-. 3. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER DATED 10.09.2014 REVEALS THAT GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL HAS REMAINED UNADJUDICATED. HENC E, THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER DATED 10.09.14. WE , THEREFORE, RECALL THE ORDER DATED 10.09.14 TO THE LIMITED EXTENT FOR THE PURPOS E OF ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO.5 ONLY. THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RELATION TO THE GROUND NO.1 TO 4 WILL REMAIN AS SUCH AS PER ORDER DATED 10.09.2014. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL FOR ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO.5 ON 15.12 .16 IN REGULAR COURSE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.10.2016. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 07.10.2016. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. MA NO.125/M/2016 M/S. RAJHANS METALS PVT. LTD. 3 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.