ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD., KISHANGARH V. ACIT, Ajmer

MA 131/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6478 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K C MUNDRA CA SHR
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Assessment record

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKWY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ MA NO.131/JP/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 922/JP/2013) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD., 201, RIICO INDUSTRIAL ROAD, MADANGANJ KISHANGARH CUKE VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AJMER LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AABCA5204A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ MA NO.132/JP/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 923/JP/2013) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 M/S JAIN & JAIN STONES PVT. LTD., JAIPUR BYE-PASS ROAD, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL ROAD, MADANGANJ, KISHANGARH. CUKE VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, AJMER LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AABCJ3147P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. C. MUNDRA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/01/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/04/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 2 THESE ARE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATE D ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 922/JP/2013 AND IT A NO. 923/JP/2013 DATED 06.09.2017. BOTH THESE MISC. APP LICATIONS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLI DATED ORDER. 2. IN ITS MISC. APPLICATION NO. 131/JP/2017 FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE COMPANY U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF APPARENT MISTAKES WHICH REQUIRE RECTIFICATION AN D THEREAFTER IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE COMPLETE ORDER PASSED BY THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH MAY BE RECALLED. WE THEREFORE REFER TO EACH OF THE APPARENT MISTAKES AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS MISC. AP PLICATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THESE ARE MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND WHETHER ALL THESE MISTAKES TAKEN TOGETHER RESULT IN A SITUATION WHERE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH NEEDS TO B E RECALLED. 3. IN POINT NO. 1 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE GROUND NO. 1, BINDING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 120(5) AND 124(4) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED OR CO ULD NOT BE RIGHTLY APPRECIATED BY THE BENCH. FURTHER IN POINT NO. 2, I T IS SUBMITTED THAT PART OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 10.12.2015 IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO. 1 COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE BENCH BY MISTA KE. 3.1 ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-ORDINA TE BENCH, IT IS OBSERVED THAT FROM PARA NO. 3 AT PAGE 4 TILL PARA N O. 13 AT PAGE 16, THE BENCH HAS DISCUSSED EXHAUSTIVELY THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. AR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AND ALSO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 3 FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CONTENTIONS ALONG WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY. 4. IN POINT NO. 3 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, THE AS SESSEE COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 2 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STA TED THAT A TEAM OF I.T. OFFICIALS INCLUDING UN-EMPOWERED OFFICIALS / P ERSONS CONDUCTED SURVEY AGAINST THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN VERY UNLAWF UL MANNER AND ENTIRE SURVEY PROCEEDING WAS CARRIED OUT IN COMPLET ELY UNLAWFUL MANNER WITH FABRICATION AND FORGERY............... REMAIN ED MATERIALLY OUT OF CONSIDERATION BY MISTAKE AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S (REVENUES PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 10, 11 AND 12) WERE CONSIDERED AND AC CEPTED AT PAR BUT WITHOUT CONSIDERING AND COMPARING THE APPELLANTS P APER-BOOK PAGE NO. 35/3 IN WHICH 16 PERSONS SHOWN TO BE CARRIED OUT TH E SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST AUTHORIZED 9 OFFICIALS (REVE NUES PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 12). 4.1 WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE-SAID FACT REGARDING THE AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS OF THE SURVEY HAS BEEN DULY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIO N AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH ARE RE PRODUCED AT PARA 15 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AND AFT ER TAKING THE SAME INTO CONSIDERATION, THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDE D AT PARA 18 THAT THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WERE DULY APPROVED AND DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS HAVE CARRIED OUT THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 5. IN POINT NO. 4 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA 2 OF THE ORDER, THE SENTENCE AND/OR WORDS, BOTH THESE APPEALS INVOLVED IDENTICAL FACTS AND GROUNDS ' WERE WRITTEN / TYPED BY M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 4 MISTAKE AS THE FACTS OF GROUND NO. 1 OF BOTH THE AP PEALS WERE NOT IDENTICAL. FURTHER, IN POINT NO. 5 OF THE MISC. APP LICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA 2 OF THE ORDER, THE SENTENC E AND/OR WORDS, WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES, ITA NO. 92/JP/13 RELAT ING TO M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD WAS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE AT THE START OF THE HEARING WERE WRITTEN /TYPED BY MISTAKE BECAUSE APPELLANT NE VER CONSENTED FOR FIRST GROUND AS IDENTICAL AND APPELLANT ALWAYS SUBM ITTED WRITTEN PAPER BOOKS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SEPARATELY FOR BOTH A PPEALS. 5.1 WE FIND THAT ON REVIEWING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN BOTH THESE APPEALS WHICH WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THE GROUND NO. 1 IS EXACTLY IDENTICALLY WORDED AND DRAFTED BY THE RESPECTIVE AS SESSEES COMPANIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHERE THE QUE STION OF JURISDICTION U/S 124 HAS BEEN CHALLENGED IN BOTH THE CASES. FUR THER, ON READING OF PARA 2 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AS WELL AS RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THERE IS NO SCOPE OF ANY MISTAKE OR AMBIGUITY AND IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT BOTH THESE A PPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER WHICH INVOLVE IDENTICAL FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND IN PARTICULAR, GROUND NO. 1 AND DURING THE COURSE OF H EARING, MATTER RELATING TO ANUPAM MARBLES WAS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CA SE WITH THE CONSENT OF THE BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE LD AR RAISE D HIS CONTENTIONS REGARDING M/S ANUPAM MARBLES AND THEREAFTER SUBMITT ED THAT UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONS HA VE BEEN MADE IN CASE OF M/S JAIN AND JAIN STONES AND HIS CONTENTIONS SO RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF M/S ANUPAM MARBLES MAY BE EQUALLY CONSIDERED IN CASE OF M/S JAIN AND JAIN STONES. AND THE SAID UNDERSTANDING OF THE BENCH HAS BEEN CLEARLY REFLECTED IN PARA 2 OF THE ORDER. THEREFOR E, WE DONOT FIND THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS WHIC H CALLS FOR RECTIFICATION. M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 5 6. IN POINT NO. 6 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IN PARA 2 OF THE ORDER, THE SENTENCE AND/OR WORDS. WI TH THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES, ITA NO. 92/JP/13 RELATING TO M/S ANUP AM MARBLES PVT. LTD WAS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE AT THE START OF THE HEAR ING WERE WRITTEN / TYPED BY MISTAKE BECAUSE THE ITA NO.92/JP/13 IS INC ORRECT NUMBER. 6.1 WE FIND THAT IT IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE, THE CORRECT ITA NO. IN CASE OF M/S ANUPAM MARBLES IS 922/JP/13 AND ITA NO. 922/JP/13 SHOULD BE READ INSTEAD OF ITA NO.92/JP/13. 7. IN POINT NO. 7 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA-6 OF THE ORDER (PAGE NO. 7), THE SENTENCES / WORDS, THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY ACCORDING TO CASS (COPY ENCLOSED ANNEXURE-2). ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF THE CBD T, THE NOTICES U/S 143(2) ARE TO BE ISSUED IN THE CASE SELECTED THROUG H CASS, HAVING PAN WITH AO (COPY ENCLOSED ANNEXURE-B). THIS IS A REGUL AR PROCESS FOR ISSUING NOTICES IN CASES OF CASS SELECTED SCRUTINY. ...........(ANNEXURE-C) WERE AFFIRMED BY APPARENT MISTAKE AS APPELLANTS CA SE WAS NOT SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS. 7.1 WE FIND THAT IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER, THE FINDIN GS OF THE CIT(A) HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED AND THEREAFTER, THE FINDINGS O F THE COORDINATE BENCH ARE CONTAINED AT PARA 7 OF THE ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED THROUGH MANU AL BASIS. THERE IS THUS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE COOR DINATE BENCH. 8. IN POINT NO. 8 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT AS MENTIONED IN THE PARA-18 (ON PAGE NO. 23 OF THE ORD ER), PAGE NO. 12 OF REVENUE'S PAPER BOOK PRODUCED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E WAS CONSIDERED BY MISTAKE AS IT WAS NEITHER PRODUCED BEFORE THE AP PELLANT NOR APPLICATION WAS FILED U/RULE 29 NOR ANY REASON WAS RECORDED U/RULE 29 M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 6 BY THE HON'BLE BENCH. MORE EVER, IT IS APPARENTLY F ABRICATED DOCUMENTS PREPARED AFTER SURVEY PROCEEDING BEARING NO INWARD / OUTWARD DISPATCH NUMBER AND OFFICE STAMP. 8.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH PARA 18 OF THE ORDER OF TH E COORDINATE BENCH WHICH REFERS TO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ITO, KI SHANGARH AND ADD CIT, RANGE-1, AJMER SEEKING AUTHORIZATION AND S UBSEQUENT APPROVAL FOR CARRYING OUT THE SURVEY. THESE COMMUN ICATIONS ARE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE TERME D AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN ANY CASE, IN THE ORDER OF THE COORDIN ATE BENCH, IT HAS BEEN STATED CLEARLY THAT THE SAID AUTHORIZATION WAS SERVED ON THE DIRECTOR SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BOHRA ON 18.2.2009 AND HI S SIGNATURES WERE OBTAINED AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT RAISE THIS GROUND NOW THAT THESE ARE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NEITHER SHARED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FUR THER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT THESE OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION S ARE FABRICATED DOCUMENTS AS SO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. W E THEREFORE, DONOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THIS REGARD. 9. IN POINT NO. 9 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA-36 AT PAGE NO.50, IN ITA NO. 923/JP/13, T HE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL WHEREIN THE SURVEY WAS CONDUC TED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S JAIN & JAIN /STONES PVT LTD AND THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTORS WHO HAPPENED TO BE THE DIRECTORS OF M/S A NUPAM MARBLES WERE RECORDED. ............... HENCE, OUR FINDINGS AND DIRECTIONS IN ITA NO. 922/JP/13 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS MATT ER AS WELL AS ALL THE FACTS OF BOTH THE CASES ARE NEITHER THE SAME NOR IT WAS AGREED AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT-APPLICANT. M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 7 9.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH PARA 2 AND PARA 36 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AND AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE AS WELL, THERE IS A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AS CONVEYED BY ASSESSEE AND WHI CH FIND CLEAR REFLECTION IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BE NCH THAT THE FACTS OF THE BOTH THE CASES ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL AND THE SA ME WERE AGREED AND SUBMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IN LIGHT OF THE SAM E, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 10. IN POINT NO. 10 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT H AS BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA-19 AT PAGE NO. 24 RELEVANT TO GROUND NO. 2 , BESIDES, THE STATEMENT IN THIS CASE, AS WE HAVE NOTED IN SUBSEQU ENT PARAGRAPHS, IS ONE OF THE EVIDENCES BEING RELIED UPON BY THE AO AN D AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND IS NOT THE SOLE EVIDENCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ' WAS WRITTEN/ TYPED BY MISTAKE AS NONE OF EVIDENCE WAS N OTED IN SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS RELEVANT TO GROUND NO. 2 AND REMAINING E VIDENCES (IF ANY) WERE ALSO NO WHERE DEALT WITH AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY THE HONBLE BENCH. 10.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C OORDINATE BENCH AND WE FIND THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN PARA 19 REFE RS TO SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER EVIDENCES GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SUVEY WHICH ARE DISCUSSED IN PARA 30 OF T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. WE THEREFORE DONOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 11. IN POINT NO. 11 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HA S BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA-33 OF THE ORDER AT PAGE NO.49 PARA 6.5 WA S WRITTEN AND TYPED BY MISTAKE AS NO PARA 6.5 WAS NOTED ABOVE IN THE OR DER AS MENTIONED. 11.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C OORDINATE BENCH AND REFERENCE TO PARA 6.5 IS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) WHICH IS M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 8 REPRODUCED AT PAGE 38 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO ORDINATE BENCH AND HENCE, THE SAME SHOULD BE READ AS PARA 6.5 OF O RDER OF THE LD CIT(A) NOTED ABOVE. 12. IN POINT NO. 12 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT BY MISTAKE, VARIOUS MATERIAL EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS I N PAPER BOOK AND ADDITIONAL PAPER BOOK COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY TH E BENCH. AND IN POINT NO. 13 OF THE MISC. APPLICATIONS, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT BY MISTAKE, CERTAIN MATERIAL ARGUMENTS IN WRITTEN SUBM ISSION COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE BENCH. 12.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C OORDINATE BENCH AND WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DULY CONS IDERED ALL THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD AR DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, AND THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT O F THE CONTENTIONS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND HAS THEREAFTER PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER DISPOSING EACH OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITS APPEAL. 13. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY ADD THAT THE SCOPE OF SE CTION 254(2) IS LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM THE RECORD AND ONCE A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BASED ON APPRECIATIO N OF MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD AND CONTENTIONS SO ADVANCED, THER E IS NO SCOPE FOR REVISITING OR REVIEW OF THE ORDER ALREADY PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE , ON REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AND OTHER MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE DONOT THINK THERE IS ANY MISTAKE WHICH I S APPARENT FROM RECORD EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES WH ICH WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE. THUS, WE DONOT THINK THERE IS ANY BASIS FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 9 14. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DISPOSED OFF WITH ABOVE DIRECTIONS. MA NO. 132/JP/2013 15. IN ITS MISC. APPLICATION NO. 132/JP/2017 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF APPARENT MISTAKES WHICH REQUIRE RECTIFICATION AN D THEREAFTER IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE COMPLETE ORDER PASSED BY THE C O-ORDINATE BENCH MAY BE RECALLED. WE THEREFORE REFER TO EACH OF THE APPARENT MISTAKES AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITS APPLICAT ION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THESE ARE MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND WHETHER ALL THESE MISTAKES RESULT IN A SITUATION WHERE THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH CALL FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDER. 16. IN POINT NO.1 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE ENTIRE GROUND NO. 1 AS MENTIONED IN APPEAL ORDER AT PAGE NO. 3, 'LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) ERRED IN REJECTING T HE GROUND RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION AS ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED WITHOUT LAWFUL JURISDICTION AND WITHOUT GETTING THE QUESTION OF JU RISDICTION DECIDED U/S 124' REMAINED OUT OF CONSIDERATION BY MISTAKE TREAT ING IT IDENTICAL TO FACTS OF GROUND NO. 1 OF OTHER APPEAL OF M/S ANUPA M MARBLES PVT. LTD. WHEREAS FACTS OF THIS GROUND WAS NOT IDENTICAL TO A PPEAL NO. 923/JP/2013 AND THUS, GROUND NO. 1 WAS NOT DECIDED AT ALL BY THE HONBLE ITAT BY MISTAKE. IN POINT NO. 2 OF THE MISC . APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 10.04.2017 (ALMOST RELATING TO GROUND NO. 1), COULD NOT BE CON SIDERED BY HON'BLE BENCH BY MISTAKE. 16.1 WE FIND THAT ON REVIEWING THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L IN BOTH THESE APPEALS WHICH WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THE GROUND NO. 1 IS IDENTICALLY M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 10 WORDED AND DRAFTED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES COM PANIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHERE THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 124 HAS BEEN CHALLENGED IN BOTH THE CASES. FURTHER, ON READING OF PARA 2 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AS WELL AS RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THERE IS NO SCOPE OF ANY MISTAKE OR AMBI GUITY AND IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER W HICH INVOLVE IDENTICAL FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND IN PARTIC ULAR, GROUND NO. 1 AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, MATTER RELATING T O ANUPAM MARBLES WAS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE WITH THE CONSENT OF THE BOTH THE PARTIES AND THE LD AR RAISED HIS CONTENTIONS REGARDING M/S ANUP AM MARBLES AND THEREAFTER SUBMITTED THAT UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASE OF M/S JAIN AND JA IN STONES AND HIS CONTENTIONS SO RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF M/S ANUPAM MARBLES MAY BE EQUALLY CONSIDERED IN CASE OF M/S JAIN AND JAIN STO NES. AND THE SAID UNDERSTANDING OF THE BENCH HAS BEEN CLEARLY REFLECT ED IN PARA 2 OF THE ORDER. THEREFORE, WE DONOT FIND THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS WHICH CALLS FOR RECTIFICATION. 17. IN POINT NO. 3 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HA S BEEN STATED THAT IN GROUND NO. 2 AS MENTIONED IN APPEAL ORDER AT PAGE N O. 3, A TEAM OF I.T. OFFICIALS INCLUDING UN-EMPOWERED OFFICIALS / P ERSONS CONDUCTED SURVEY AGAINST THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN VERY UNLAWF UL MANNER AND ENTIRE SURVEY PROCEEDING WAS CARRIED OUT IN COMPLET ELY UNLAWFUL MANNER WITH FABRICATION AND FORGERY............... REMAIN ED MATERIALLY OUT OF CONSIDERATION BY MISTAKE AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S (REVENUES PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 10, 11 AND 12) WERE CONSIDERED AND AC CEPTED AT PAR BUT WITHOUT CONSIDERING AND COMPARING THE APPELLANT S PAPER-BOOK PAGE NO. 35/3 IN WHICH 16 PERSONS SHOWN TO BE CARRIED OU T THE SURVEY M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 11 PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST AUTHORIZED 9 OFFICIALS (REVE NUES PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 12). 17.1 WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE-SAID FACT HAS BEEN DULY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS W RITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AT PARA 15 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AND AFTER TAKING THE SAME INTO CONSIDERATION, THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED AT PARA 18 THAT THE SURVEY PROCEE DINGS HAVE BEEN DULY APPROVED AND DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICERS HAVE CAR RIED OUT THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MI STAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 18. IN POINT NO.4 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA 2 OF THE ORDER, THE SENTENCE AND/OR WORDS, BOTH THESE APPEALS INVOLVED IDENTICAL FACTS AND GROUNDS ' WERE WRITTEN / TYPED BY MISTAKE AS THE FACTS OF GROUND NO. 1 OF BOTH THE AP PEALS WERE NOT IDENTICAL. IN POINT NO. 5 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA 2 OF THE ORDER, THE SENTENCE AND/OR WOR DS, WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES, ITA NO. 92/JP/13 RELATING TO M/S ANUPAM MORBLES PVT. LTD WAS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE AT THE START OF THE HEARING WERE WRITTEN /TYPED BY MISTAKE BECAUSE APPELLANT NE VER CONSENTED FOR FIRST GROUND AS IDENTICAL AND APPELLANT ALWAYS SUBM ITTED WRITTEN PAPER BOOKS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SEPARATELY FOR BOTH A PPEALS. 18.1 WE FIND THAT ON REVIEWING THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L IN BOTH THESE APPEALS WHICH WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THE GROUND NO. 1 IS EXACTLY IDENTICALLY WORDED AND DRAFTED BY THE RESPECTIVE AS SESSEES COMPANIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHERE THE QUE STION OF JURISDICTION U/S 124 HAS BEEN CHALLENGED IN BOTH THE CASES. FUR THER, ON READING OF PARA 2 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AS WELL AS M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 12 RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR A ND THERE IS NO SCOPE OF ANY MISTAKE OR AMBIGUITY THAT BOTH THESE APPEALS WE RE HEARD TOGETHER WHICH INVOLVE IDENTICAL FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND IN PARTICULAR, GROUND NO. 1. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM THE RECORDS WHICH CALLS FOR RECTIFICATION. 19. IN POINT NO.6 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA 2 OF THE ORDER, THE SENTENCE AND/OR WORDS. WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH PARTIES, ITA NO. 92/JP/13 RELATING TO M/S A NUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD WAS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE AT THE START OF THE HEARING WERE WRITTEN / TYPED BY MISTAKE BECAUSE THE ITA NO.92/JP/13 IS I NCORRECT NUMBER. 19.1 WE FIND THAT IT IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE, TH E CORRECT ITA NO. IN CASE OF M/S ANUPAM MARBLES IS 922/JP/13 AND ITA NO. 922/JP/13 SHOULD BE READ INSTEAD OF ITA NO.92/JP/13. 20. IN POINT NO.7 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT AS MENTIONED IN THE PARA-18 (ON PAGE NO. 22 OF THE ORD ER), PAGE NO. 10 AND 11 OF REVENUE'S PAPER BOOK (IN CASE OF ITA 922/ JP/13) PRODUCED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS CONSIDERED BY MISTAKE AS IT WAS NEITHER PRODUCED BEFORE CIT(A) AND THE APPELLANT NOR APPLIC ATION WAS FILED U/RULE 29 NOR ANY REASON WAS RECORDED U/RULE 29 BY THE HONBLE BENCH. MORE EVER, IT IS APPARENTLY FABRICATED DOCUMENTS PR EPARED AFTER SURVEY PROCEEDING BEARING NO INWARD / OUTWARD DISPATCH NUM BER AND OFFICE STAMP. IN POINT NO.8 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT H AS BEEN STATED THAT AS MENTIONED IN THE PARA-18 (ON PAGE NO. 23 OF THE ORD ER), PAGE NO. 12 OF REVENUE'S PAPER BOOK PRODUCED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E WAS CONSIDERED BY MISTAKE AS IT WAS NEITHER PRODUCED BEFORE THE AP PELLANT NOR APPLICATION WAS FILED U/RULE 29 NOR ANY REASON WAS RECORDED U/RULE 29 BY THE HON'BLE BENCH MORE EVER, IT IS APPARENTLY FA BRICATED DOCUMENTS M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 13 PREPARED AFTER SURVEY PROCEEDING BEARING NO INWARD / OUTWARD DISPATCH NUMBER AND OFFICE STAMP. MORE EVER SUCH AUTHORIZATI ON IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS APPEAL NO.923/JP/13 AND THEREFORE, IT WAS C ONSIDERED IN THIS APPEAL BY MISTAKE. 20.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH PARA 18 OF THE ORDER OF T HE COORDINATE BENCH WHICH REFER TO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ITO, KIS HANGARH AND ADD CIT, RANGE-1, AJMER SEEKING AUTHORIZATION AND SUBSE QUENT APPROVAL FOR CARRYING OUT THE SURVEY. THESE COMMUNICATIONS ARE PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE TERMED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN ANY CASE, IN THE ORDER OF THE COORDINA TE BENCH, IT HAS BEEN STATED CLEARLY THAT THE SAID AUTHORIZATION WAS SERV ED ON THE DIRECTOR SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BOHRA ON 18.2.2009 AND HIS SIGNATU RES WERE OBTAINED AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT RAISE THIS GROUND NOW THAT THESE ARE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES WHICH WERE NEITHER SHARED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FURTHER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT THESE OFFICIAL COMMUNICATIONS ARE FABRI CATED DOCUMENTS AS SO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE THEREFORE, DONOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THIS REGARD. 21. IN POINT NO.9 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA 30 AT PAGE NO. 43, 'IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE TH AT THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS HAS NO EVIDE NTIARY VALUE OF IT OWN BUT WHERE SUCH STATEMENT IS SUPPORTED WITH CRED IABLE VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE IN FORM OF DIARY FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SURVEY WHERE THE ENTRIES WERE FOUND RECORDED WITH CLEAR NAMES AND AM OUNT RELATING TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN THE NAME OF BOGUS ENTRIES WERE RECORDED, EXCESS AND UNRECONCILE D INVENTORY OF CASH AND STOCK WERE FOUND, THEN IN SUCH A A SITUATION, T HE STATEMENT M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 14 RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY COUPLED WITH T HESE CREDIBLE EVIDENCE CAN DEFINITELY FORM THE BASIS FOR MAKING T HE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE.' WAS MENTIONED BY MISTAKE BE CAUSE- (A) NO CLEAR NAMES AND AMOUNTS WERE FOUND / SEEN WR ITTEN IN THE ALLEGED TELEPHONE DIARY. (B) ENTRIES IN ALLEGED TELEPHONE DIARY ARE TOTALLY CONSPIRED, FORGED AND FABRICATED WHICH WERE JUST COVERED THROUGH UNRELIAB LE AND FABRICATED STATEMENTS. (C) INVENTORIES OF CASH AND STOCKS WERE SELF PREPA RED AND CREATED BY THE ITD OFFICIALS ONLY AND THEREFORE, THESE INVENTO RIES ARE NOT CREDIBLE AND VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. (D) EVEN IN ITA NO. 111, 112, 227 AND 228/JU/2013 D ATED 06.08.2013 (MENTIONED AT PAGE NO.32) AND IN MANY MORE CASES, S ELF PREPARED AND CREATED INVENTORIES OF CASH AND STOCKS (BY THE ITD) WERE NEVER TREATED AS PIECE OF EVIDENCE AS THESE WERE NOT FOUND DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. 21.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH PARA 30 OF THE ORDER OF T HE COORDINATE BENCH AND FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDINGS REGARDING CREDIABLE EVIDENCE IN FORM OF DI ARY FOUND DURING HE COURSE OF SURVEY WHERE ENTRIES WERE RECORDED WITH C LEAR NAMES AND AMOUNT RELATING TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDI SCLOSED SOURCES. ONCE THE SAID PIECE OF EVIDENCE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND FINDING THEREOF HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT PLEAD TO REEXAMINE THE SAID EVIDENCE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 22. IN POINT NO.10 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HA S BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA-36 AT PAGE NO.50, 'IN ITA NO. 923/JP/13, T HE FACTS OF THE CASE M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 15 ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL WHEREIN THE SURVEY WAS CONDUC TED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S JAIN & JOIN STONES PVT. LTD AND THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTORS WHO HAPPENED TO BE THE DIRECTORS OF M/S A NUPAM MARBLES WERE RECORDED. ......HENCE, OUR FINDINGS AND DIRECT IONS IN ITA NO.922/JP/13 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THIS M ATTER AS WELL AS ALL THE FACTS OF BOTH THE CASES ARE NEITHER THE SAME NO R IT WAS AGREED AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT-APPLICANT. 22.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH PARA 2 AND PARA 36 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AND AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE AS WELL, THERE IS A CLEAR MENTION THAT THE FACTS OF THE BOTH THE CASES ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL AND THE SAME WERE AGREED AND SUBMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECO RD. 23. IN POINT NO.11 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HA S BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA-19 AT PAGE NO. 24 RELEVANT TO GROUND NO. 2 , 'BESIDES, THE STATEMENT IN THIS CASE, AS WE HAVE NOTED IN SUBSEQU ENT PARAGRAPHS, IS ONE OF THE EVIDENCES BEING RELIED UPON BY THE AO AN D AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND IS NOT THE SOLE EVIDENCE IN THE INSTANT CASE' WAS WRITTEN / TYPED BY MISTAKE AS NONE OF EVIDENCE WAS IN SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS RELEVANT TO GROUND NO. 2 AND REMAINING E VIDENCES (IF ANY) WERE ALSO NOWHERE DEALT WITH AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY THE HONBLE BENCH. 23.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C OORDINATE BENCH AND WE FIND THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN PARA 19 REFE RS TO SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING OTHER EVIDENCES GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SUVEY WHICH ARE DISCUSSED IN PARA 30 OF T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. WE THEREFORE DONOT FIND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 16 24. IN POINT NO.12 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HA S BEEN STATED THAT IN THE PARA-33 OF THE ORDER AT PAGE NO.49, 'PARA 6.5 W AS WRITTEN AND TYPED BY MISTAKE AS NO PARA 6.5 WAS NOTED ABOVE IN THE ORDER AS MENTIONED. 24.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C OORDINATE BENCH AND REFERENCE TO PARA 6.5 IS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 38 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO ORDINATE BENCH AND HENCE, THE SAME SHOULD BE READ AS PARA 6.5 OF O RDER OF THE LD CIT(A) NOTED ABOVE. 25. IN POINT NO.13 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT BY MISTAKE VARIOUS MATERIAL EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS IN PAPER BOOK COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH. IN POINT N O.14 OF THE MISC. APPLICATION, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT BY MISTAKE, CE RTAIN MATERIAL ARGUMENTS IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION COULD NOT BE CONSID ERED BY THE HONBLE BENCH. 25.1 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C OORDINATE BENCH AND WE FIND THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DULY CONS IDERED ALL THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD AR DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING, THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTIONS AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND HAS THEREAFTER PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER DISPOSING EACH OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITS APPEAL. 26. BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY ADD THAT THE SCOPE OF SE CTION 254(2) IS LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM THE RECORD AND ONCE A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BASED ON APPRECIATIO N OF MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD AND CONTENTIONS SO ADVANCED, THER E IS NO SCOPE FOR REVISITING OR REVIEW OF THE ORDER ALREADY PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE , ON REVIEW OF THE M.A. NO. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD & M/S JAIN & JAIN STONE S PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, AJMER 17 ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH AND OTHER MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE DONOT THINK THERE IS ANY MISTAKE WHICH I S APPARENT FROM RECORD EXCEPT FOR CERTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES WH ICH WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE. THUS, WE DONOT THINK THERE IS ANY BASIS FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS DISPOSED OFF WITH ABOVE DIRECTIONS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/04/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKWY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 02/04/2018 * GANESH KR VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S ANUPAM MARBLES PVT. LTD.& M/S JA IN & JAIN STONES PVT. LTD., 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ACIT, AJMER 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { M.A. NO. 131/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR