Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9703 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date
12-12-2012
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
F
Assessment Year
2002-2003
Appeal Filed On
29-05-2012
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO.130/DEL./2012 (IN ITA NO.4753/DEL./2010) (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) PREM COLONISERS PVT. LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 14(3), C-1/1213, VASANT KUNJ, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AACCP5682J) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K. GOYAL, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI SUKHBIR CHAUDHARY, SR.DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, JM BY MEANS OF THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, ASSESSEE SEEKS TO GET RECALLED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 29.02.2012 PASSED IN I. T.A. NO.4753/DEL./2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE PLEA THAT GROUND NOS .3,4,5 & 6 OF THE APPEAL HAVE NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED AS ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE VERY MUCH THERE ON THE RECORD IN THE PAPER BOOK. THEREF ORE, RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHALA KSHMI TEXTILE MILLS LTD., 66 I.T.R. 710 (MAD.) AND KERALA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CA SE OF KERALA CHEMICALS AND PROTIENS LTD. VS. CIT, 235 I.T.R. 467(KER.), IT WAS PLEADED FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH. 2. LD.DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE MOVE OF THE ASSESSEE AND PLEADED THAT SINCE EACH AND EVERY ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY T HIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL AND BY MAKING REFERENCE TO PARA .7 OF THE ORDER DATED 29.2.2012, IT WAS PLEADED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT IN CASE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED THAT W OULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER, MA. NO.130/DEL./2012 (IN I.T.A. NO.4753/DEL./2010) A.Y. : 2002-03 2 WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW AS ALL THE POINT S RAISED IN THE APPEAL HAS DULY BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLU SION AS DRAWN. IT WAS THUS PLEADED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE APPLICATION. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND BEFORE REVERTING TO FACTS, IT WOULD BE APT TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. RELATING TO SECTION 254(2). A BARE LOOK AT SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEA LS WITH RECTIFICATION, MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS RECTIF IABLE. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2), A MISTAKE MUST EXIST AND THE SAME M UST BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE POWER TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT COV ER CASES WHERE A REVISION OR REVIEW OF THE ORDER IS INTENDED. MISTAKE MEANS TO TAKE OR UNDER STAND WRONGLY OR INACCURATELY; TO MAKE AN ERROR IN INTERPRETING, IT IS AN ERROR; A FAULT, A M ISUNDERSTANDING, A MISCONCEPTION. APPARENT MEANS VISIBLE; CAPABLE OF BEING SEEN; EASILY SEEN; OBVIOUS; PLAIN. A MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS ONE WHICH IS PATE NT, WHICH IS OBVIOUS AND WHOSE DISCOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ARGUMENT OR ELABORATION. THE LA NGUAGE USED IN SECTION 254(2) IS PERMISSIBLE WHERE IT IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF TH E TRIBUNAL THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMENDMENT OF AN O RDER DOES NOT MEAN OBLITERATION OF THE ORDER ORIGINALLY PASSED AND ITS SUBSTITUTION BY A N EW ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2). FURTHER, WHERE AN ERR OR IS FAR FROM SELF EVIDENT, IT CEASES TO BE AN APPARENT ERROR. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT A MISTA KE CAPABLE OF BEING RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS NOT CONFINED TO CLERICAL OR ARITHMETICAL MISTAKES. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT DOES NOT COVER ANY MISTAKE WHICH MAY BE DISCOVERED BY A COMP LICATED PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION, ARGUMENT OR PROOF. AS OBSERVED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN MASTER CONSTRUCTION CO. (P.) LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA [1966] 17 STC 360, AN ERROR WHIC H IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD SHOULD BE ONE WHICH IS NOT AN ERROR WHICH DEPENDS F OR ITS DISCOVERY ON ELABORATE ARGUMENTS ON QUESTIONS OF FACT OR LAW. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALS O EXPRESSED IN SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEGDE V. MALLIKARJUN BHAVANAPPA TIRUMALE AIR 1960 S C 137. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE LANGUAGE USED IN ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CI VIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. POWER I S GIVEN TO VARIOUS AUTHORITIES TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS UNDOUBTED LY NOT MORE THAN THAT OF THE HIGH COURT TO ENTERTAIN A WRIT PETITION ON THE BASIS OF AN ER ROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. MA. NO.130/DEL./2012 (IN I.T.A. NO.4753/DEL./2010) A.Y. : 2002-03 3 MISTAKE IS AN ORDINARY WORD, BUT IN TAXATION LAWS, IT HAS A SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE. IT IS NOT AN ARITHMETICAL OR CLERICAL ERROR ALONE THAT COMES WIT HIN ITS PURVIEW. IT COMPREHENDS ERRORS WHICH, AFTER A JUDICIOUS PROBE INTO THE RECORD FROM WHICH IT IS SUPPOSED TO EMANATE, ARE DISCERNED. THE WORD MISTAKE IS INHERENTLY INDEFIN ITE IN SCOPE, AS WHAT MAY BE A MISTAKE FOR ONE MAY NOT BE ONE FOR ANOTHER. IT IS MOSTLY SUBJEC TIVE AND THE DIVIDING LINE IN BORDER AREAS IS THIN AND INDISCERNIBLE. IT IS SOMETHING WHICH A DUL Y AND JUDICIOUSLY INSTRUCTED MIND CAN FIND OUT FROM THE RECORD. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE POWER TO RECTIFY UNDER SECTION 254(2) IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT IF THERE IS MERELY A MISTAKE IN THE ORDE RS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. THE MISTAKE TO BE RECTIFIED MUST BE ONE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. A D ECISION ON THE DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW OR UNDISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARE NT FROM THE RECORD. THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE WORD APPARENT IS THAT IT MUST BE SOMETHING WH ICH APPEARS TO BE SO EX FACIE AND IT IS IN CAPABLE OF ARGUMENT OR DEBATE. IT IS THEREFORE, FOL LOWS THAT A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW OR FACT OR FAILURE TO APPLY THE LAW TO A SET OF FACTS WHICH REMAINS TO BE INVESTIGATED CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION. 4. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE DISCUSSION HELD IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, THAT A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION CAN LIE ONLY WITH REGARD TO AN ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD WHICH HAS NOT EMERGED FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND MOR EOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IN CASE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO RE VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AS HAS RIGHTLY BEEN PLEADED BY THE LD. DR, THAT REVIEWING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AND FOR THAT PURPOSE USEFUL REFERENCE C AN BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. 4.1 THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GOKUL CHAND AGARWAL (202 ITR 14), HAS HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, EMPOWE RS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) TO RECT IFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD EITHER SUO MOTO OR ON AN A PPLICATION. THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER THU S DEPENDS ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IF, IN ITS ORDER, THERE IS NO MISTAKE WHICH IS PATENT AND OBVIOUS ON THE BA SIS OF THE RECORD, THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254(2) WILL BE ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER. AN OVERSIGHT OF A FACT CANNO T CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 254(2). THIS MIGHT, AT THE MA. NO.130/DEL./2012 (IN I.T.A. NO.4753/DEL./2010) A.Y. : 2002-03 4 WORST, LEAD TO PERVERSITY OF THE ORDER FOR WHICH TH E REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER SECTION 254(2) BUT A REFE RENCE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 256. THE NORMAL RULE IS THAT THE REMEDY BY WAY OF REVIEW IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE AND, UNLESS CLOTHED WITH SU CH POWER BY THE STATUTE, NO AUTHORITY CAN EXERCISE THE POWER. REVIEW PROCEED INGS IMPLY PROCEEDINGS WHERE A PARTY, AS OF RIGHT, CAN APPLY F OR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER, ALREADY DECIDED UPON, AFTER A FRESH HEA RING ON THE MERITS O THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE PARTIES. SUCH REMEDY IS CER TAINLY NOT PROVIDED BY THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, IN RESPECT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4.2 IN SIMILAR SITUATION, WHILE DEALING WITH THE RE CTIFICATION, THE HON'BLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT AND ANOR VS. I.T.A.T AND ANOR (206 ITR 126 HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEING A CREATURE OF THE ST ATUTE, HAS TO CONFINE ITSELF IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION TO THE E NABLING OR EMPOWERING TERMS OF THE STATUTE. IT HAS NO INHERENT POWER. E VEN OTHERWISE, IN CASES WHERE SPECIFIC PROVISION DELINEATES THE POWERS OF T HE COURT OR TRIBUNAL, IT CANNOT DRAW UPON ITS ASSUMED INHERENT JURISDICTI ON AND PASS ORDERS AS IT PLEASES. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO BE EXERCISED IN TERMS OF THA T PROVISION. IT CANNOT BE ENLARGED ON ANY ASSUMPTION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GOT AN INHERENT POWER OF RECTIFICATION OR REVIEW OR REVISION. IT IS AXIOMATIC THAT SUCH POWER OF REVIEW OR REVISION HAS TO BE SPECIFICALLY CONFERRED, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED. UNLESS THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FR OM THE RECORD IN THE SENSE OF PATENT, OBVIOUS AND CLEAR ERROR OR MISTAKE , THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT RECALL ITS PREVIOUS ORDER. IF THE ERROR OR MISTAKE IS ONE WHICH COULD BE ESTABLISHED ONLY BY LONG DRAWN ARGUMENTS OR BY A PR OCESS OF INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH, IT IS NOT A MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM THE RECORD. 4.3 FURTHER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KARAM CHAND THAPAR AND BR.P.LTD. (176 ITR 535) HAS HELD AS UNDER: APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DUTY TO CONSIDER CUMULATIVE E FFECT OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND TOTALITY OF FACTS NO NEED TO STATE SO IN APPELLATE ORDER SPECIFICALLY INCOME TAX ACT , 1961, SEC. 254 FURTHER IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: MA. NO.130/DEL./2012 (IN I.T.A. NO.4753/DEL./2010) A.Y. : 2002-03 5 IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL OR WHET HER SOME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTIC ED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMENT. IF THE COURT, ON A FAIR READING O F THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING ITS CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LI ABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVERSE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN IT S JUDGEMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, AS IF THAT WERE A MAGIC FORMULA; IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUN AL SHOWS THAT IT HAS, IN FACT, DONE SO, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. SIMILARLY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT- VS- RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. (203 ITR 497) .IT IS AN ACCEPTED POSITION THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDERS UNDER THE P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ONLY POWER WHICH THE TRIBUNAL POSSESSES IS TO R ECTIFY ANY MISTAKE IN ITS OWN ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD.. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED S AN OBVIOU S AND PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRED TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCES S OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIO N. FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE REC ORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENTS 4.4 WE ALSO DRAW SUPPORT HERE FROM HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISION IN T.C.(A) NO. 156 OF 2006 DATED 21.08.2007 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. WHEREIN THE HONBLE HI GH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- MA. NO.130/DEL./2012 (IN I.T.A. NO.4753/DEL./2010) A.Y. : 2002-03 6 THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. WHE N THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DECIDED AN ISSUE BY APPLYING ITS MIND AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF T HE ACT. THERE WAS NO NECESSITY WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. EVEN AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE COULD NOT FIND A SINGLE REASON IN THE WHOLE ORDER A S TO HOW THE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED AND FOR WHAT REASONS. THERE IS NO APPA RENT ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THEREBY THE TRIBUNAL SAT AS AN AP PELLATE AUTHORITY OVER ITS OWN ORDER. IT IS COMPLETELY IMPERMISSIBLE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS TRAVELED OUT OF ITS JURISDICTION TO ALLOW A MISCELL ANEOUS 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 PET ITION WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT DOE S NOT CONTEMPLATE REHEARING OF THE APPEAL FOR A FRESH DISPOSAL AND DO ING SO, WOULD OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER TO REC TIFY MISTAKES AND POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. TH E SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2) IS LIMITED AND NARROW. IT IS RESTRICTED TO RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FR OM THE RECORD. RECALLING THE ORDER 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. 4.5 FURTHER, WE PLACE RELIANCE UPON HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT EXPOSITION ON THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) AS REPORTED IN THE CASE OF RAS BIHARI BANSAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2007) 293 ITR 365:- SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ENABLES T HE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN OVERSIGHT OF A FACT CANNOT CONSTITU TE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER THIS SECTION. SIMILARLY, FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR A RRIVING AT A CONCLUSION, IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT. THE MERE FACT THAT THE TRIBUN AL HAD NOT ALLOWED A DEDUCTION, EVEN IF THE CONCLUSION IS WRONG, WILL BE NO GROUND FOR MOVING AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. FUR THER, IN THE GARB OF MA. NO.130/DEL./2012 (IN I.T.A. NO.4753/DEL./2010) A.Y. : 2002-03 7 AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE PERMITTED TO REOPEN AND RE-ARGUE THE WHOLE MATTER, WHICH IS BEYO ND THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE LIGHT OF RATIO OF DECISIONS CITED AND DISCUSSION AS HELD ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTA NCE IN THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISS THE SAME BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. 5. AS A RESULT, THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE GETS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12.12.2012. SD/- SD/- (A.N. PAHUJA) (U.B.S. BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED : DEC. 12, 2012 SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPLICANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT, 4.CIT(A)-XVII, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR/ITAT
Mehul