DCIT, CC-II, Ludhiana V. Sh. Sadhu Ram Rupal, Ludhiana

MA 145/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8021 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 153A; 274; 254(2); 147; 27; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO. 145/CHD/2019 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 265/CHD/2018 DECIDED VIDE ORDER 21.05.2019) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUDHIANA VS. SH. SADHU RAM RUPAL, H.N. 374, BABA BALAK NATH ROAD, CIVIL LINES, LUDHIANA ! '# ./ PAN NO: AAZPR4905L $ '!%& APPELLANT '(!% / RESPONDENT & M.A. NO. 146/CHD/2019 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 266/CHD/2018 DECIDED VIDE ORDER 21.05.2019) / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, LUDHIANA VS. M/S MARVEL DYERS & PROCESSORS PVT LTD., VILLAGE MEHARBAN, RAHON ROAD, LUDHIANA ! '# ./ PAN NO: AAACF2565J $ '!%& APPELLANT '(!% / RESPONDENT )* + , / ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHWANI KUMAR, CA + , / REVENUE BY : SH. ASHOK KUMAR, SR.DR - . + */# / DATE OF HEARING : 19.12.2019 01 + */# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.01.2020 PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIONS (RECEIVED ON 22.10.2 019) ARISING OUT OF COMMON ORDER DATED 21.05.2019 IN ITA NOS. 265 & 266/CHD/2018 HAVE BEEN MOVED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 014-15. M.A.NOS. 145 & 146/CHD/2019 IN ITA NOS. 265 & 266/ CHD/2018- SHRI SADHU RAM RUPAL, & MARVEL DYERS & PROCESSORS P VT LTD, LUDHIANA 2 2. THE COMMON CONTENTION IN BOTH THESE MISCELLANEOU S APPLICATIONS READ AS UNDER: THAT A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY ON 24.10.2013. THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLET ED U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3)OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 23.03.2 016 AT RETURN INCOME ACCEPTED. FURTHER, PENALTY U/S 271AAB AMOUN TING TO RS.7,00,000/- AND RS. 12,50,000/- WAS IMPOSED ON TH E ASSESSEES ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.70,00,000/- AND RS. 1,25,00,000/- IN THE CASE OF SHRI SADHU RAM RUPAL A ND M/S MARVEL DYERS & PROCESSORS PVT LTD, LUDHIANA RESPECTIVELY ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY ORDER DATED 29.09.2016. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA VIDE ORDER DATED 07 .12.2017 IN APPEAL NO.409/IT/CIT(A)-5/LDH/2016-17 HAD CONFIR MED THE LEVY OF THE PENALTY U/S 271AAB. AGGRIEVED WITH THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH VIDE ITA NOS.265 & 266/CHD/2018. 3. THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT PASSED ORDER ON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF PR. CIT(C), LUD HIANA ON 21.06.2019. THE HON'BLE ITAT HELD THE PENALTY ORDER VOID ABINITIO ON THE ONLY GROUND THAT PENALLY WAS LEVIED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2016 BEFORE OBTAINING APPROVAL OF THE JCIT AS THE STATUT ORY APPROVAL OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE, LU DHIANA WAS ACCORDED ON 30.09.2016. 4. THAT WHILE ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL IN CASE OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.265 & 266/CHD/2018 FOR THE A.Y.2014-15, THE HON 'BLE ITAT HAD HELD AS UNDER:- 'FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 274 OF THE ACT, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271AAB OF THE ACT, WHICH FALLS IN CHAPTER XXI OF THE ACT S HALL NOT BE IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNTIL AND UNLESS P RIOR APPROVAL IS TAKEN FROM THE CONCERNED JOINT COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX(JCIT). THE USE OF WORD 'SHALL' MAKE IT M ANDATORY M.A.NOS. 145 & 146/CHD/2019 IN ITA NOS. 265 & 266/ CHD/2018- SHRI SADHU RAM RUPAL, & MARVEL DYERS & PROCESSORS P VT LTD, LUDHIANA 3 TO TAKE THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE JCIT/ADDITIONAL C IT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER IMPOSING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271AAB OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR FROM THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 29/09/2016 WHILE THE APPROVAL FROM TH E ADDITIONAL CIT, RANGE LUDHIANA WAS ACCORDED VIDE LE TTER NO. 1036 DATED 30.09.2016, WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHED TH AT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N 29/09/2016 BEFORE TAKING THE APPROVAL FROM THE CONC ERNED ADDITIONAL CIT,JCIT. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ORDER P ASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT WAS VOID ABINITIO. IN THAT VIEW O F THE MATTER THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) I S DELETED.' ITA NO. 266/CHD/2018 IN ITA NO. 266/CHD/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 14-15, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AS WERE INVOLVED IN ITA NO . 265/CHD/2011 IN THE CASE OF SADHU RAM RUPAL, LUDHIA NA. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY U/S 27 1AAB OF THE ACT , LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER SHALL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS. ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271AA B OF THE ACT AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS APPEAL IS ALSO DELETED. 5. THAT THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS SHOW THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAD FORWARDED THE DRAFT PENALTY ORDER U/S 271AAB OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 FOR APPROVAL OF JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE, LUDHIANA AS PER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 274 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. THE DRAFT ORDER W AS DATED AS 29.09.2016 AND THE APPROVAL WAS ACCORDED BY THE JCI T ,CENTRAL RANGE, LUDHIANA TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTE R NO. 1033 & 1023 DATED 30.09.2016 RESPECTIVLEY. INADVERTENTLY, THE DATE OF ORDER ON THE PENALTY ORDER ISSUED REMAINED UNCHANGED AS 2 9.09.2016 WHEREAS IN THE PENALTY ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE PRIOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 274 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ACCORDED BY THE ADDL./JOINT CIT, CENTRA L RANGE, LUDHIANA VIDE HIS LETTER NO. 1033 & 1023 DATED 30.0 9.2016 RESPECTIVELY . THUS, THE ERROR IN THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY TYPOGRAPHICAL AS THE DATE RECORDED ON THE M.A.NOS. 145 & 146/CHD/2019 IN ITA NOS. 265 & 266/ CHD/2018- SHRI SADHU RAM RUPAL, & MARVEL DYERS & PROCESSORS P VT LTD, LUDHIANA 4 DRAFT PENALTY ORDER SENT TO THE JCIT, CENTRAL RANGE , LUDHIANA CLEARLY REMAINED UNCHANGED ON THE ORDER WHICH WAS PASSED AF TER PRIOR APPROVAL ON 30.09.2016. THE ABOVE FACTS COULD BE SU MMARIZED AS BELOW: NAME OF THE ASSESSEE A.Y. DATE OF SUBMISSION OF DRAFT ORDER DATE OF PENALTY ORDER IN DRAFT ORDER DATE OF APPROVAL DATE MENTIONED IN PENALTY ORDER (FINAL ORDER DATE OF SERVICE M/S SADHU RAM RUPAL. 2014-15 29/09/2016 29/09/2016 30/09/2016 29/09/20 16 30/09/2016 & NAME OF THE ASSESSEE A.Y. DATE OF SUBMISSION OF DRAFT ORDER DATE OF PENALTY ORDER IN DRAFT ORDER DATE OF APPROVAL DATE MENTIONED IN PENALTY ORDER (FINAL ORDER DATE OF SERVICE M/S MARVEL DYERS & PROCESSORS PVT LTD. 2014-15 29/09/2016 29/09/2016 30/09/2016 29/09/20 16 30/09/2016 6. THAT IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT IN THE LAST PARA THE PENALTY ORDER HAS A CLEAR MENTION OF DISPATCH NO AND DATE OF JCIT'S L ETTER CONVEYING THE APPROVAL U/S 274(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH CANNOT BE MENTIONED A DAY BEFORE OF ITS ISSUANCE BY JCIT. MOR EOVER, THE PENALTY ORDER AND RELEVANT NOTICE OF DEMAND HAS BEE N SERVED UPON ASSESSEE ON 30.09.2016 I.E. THE DAY ON WHICH APPROV AL WAS ISSUED BY JCIT AND ALSO BEFORE EXPIRING OF LIMITATION. IT MAY ALSO NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF JC IT'S APPROVAL IS MENTIONED IN THE PENALTY ORDER SERVED UPON ASSESSEE BEFORE EXPIRY OF LIMITATION. AS SUCH NOT CHANGING OF DATE OF ORDER ( FROM THE DATE OF DRAFT ORDER SUBMITTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE J CIT FOR APPROVAL U/S 274(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961) IS AN INADV ERTENT CLERICAL MISTAKE WHICH IS OTHERWISE COVERED U/S 29215 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. THAT IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THERE WAS NO OCCASIO N FOR THE HON'BLE ITAT TO DELETE THE PENALTY ORDER AS THE PEN ALTY ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER THE REQUISITE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE JC IT/ADDITIONAL CIT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 274(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. M.A.NOS. 145 & 146/CHD/2019 IN ITA NOS. 265 & 266/ CHD/2018- SHRI SADHU RAM RUPAL, & MARVEL DYERS & PROCESSORS P VT LTD, LUDHIANA 5 ALSO THE ABOVE MENTIONED ERROR IN THE PENALTY ORDER IS ONLY TYPOGRAPHICAL, WHICH COULD BE CURED AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 WHICH IS PRODUCED AS UNDE R:- 'NO RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS O R OTHER PROCEEDING, FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN OR PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN IN P URSUANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALID OR S HALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OT HER PROCEEDING IF SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT.' 8. THAT THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER OF MULCHAND RAMPURIA VS ITO(2001)252 ITR 758 (CAL) HAS HELD THAT 'AFTER ENACTMENT OF SECTION 292B WHICH CA ME INTO FORCE ON 01.10.1975, NO NOTICE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION THEREIN IF THE N OTICE IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE I NTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT.' 9. THAT THE RATIO OF THIS CASE IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ALSO WHEREIN, THE SUBSTANCE AND EF FECT OF THE PENALTY ORDER IS IN CONFORMITY OF THE PROVISION OF THE ACT AND AS SUCH THE INADVERTENT MISTAKE IS COVERED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 292B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HO N'BLE ITAT BENCH MAY RECTIFY THE MISTAKE IN ITS ORDER. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. SR. DR REI TERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AND STATED THAT THE ERROR IN THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. WAS ONLY TYPOGRAPH ICAL AND THAT THE DATE IN DRAFT ORDER I.E. THE DATE 29/09/2016 REMAINED UN CHANGED WHILE THE M.A.NOS. 145 & 146/CHD/2019 IN ITA NOS. 265 & 266/ CHD/2018- SHRI SADHU RAM RUPAL, & MARVEL DYERS & PROCESSORS P VT LTD, LUDHIANA 6 APPROVAL WAS ACCORDED BY THE JCIT VIDE HIS LETTERS DT. 1023 & 1033 DT. 30/09/2016 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SADHU RAM RUPAL AND M/S MARVEL DYERS AND PROCESSORS PVT LTD. LUDHIANA RESPECTIVELY AND INADV ERTENTLY THE DATE IN FINAL PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271AAB OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) WAS WRONGLY MENT IONED AS 29/09/2016 INSTEAD OF 30/09/2016. 4. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER DT. 21/05/2019 HAS BEEN PASSED BY TH E ITAT AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS P ASSED BY THE A.O. ON 29/09/2016 AND THE APPROVAL WAS ACCORDED BY THE ADD ITIONAL COMMISSIONER, RANGE LUDHIANA ON 30/09/2016, SO THERE IS NO MISTAK E IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT AND THE DEPARTMENT IS SEEKING REVIEW OF ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOT H THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTICAL PLEADINGS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IN M.A. NO S. 147 & 148/CHD/2019 (IN ITA NOS. 490 & 491/CHD/2018) IN TH E CASE OF DCIT VS M/S SPORTKING INDIA LTD, LUDHIANA. THE COORDINATE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE IDENTICAL GROUN DS IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS M/S SPORTKING INDIA LTD, LUDHIANA (SUPRA) ORDER DATED 7.1.2020 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- M.A.NOS. 145 & 146/CHD/2019 IN ITA NOS. 265 & 266/ CHD/2018- SHRI SADHU RAM RUPAL, & MARVEL DYERS & PROCESSORS P VT LTD, LUDHIANA 7 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN TH E PRESENT CASE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE A.O. PASSED THE PENALTY ORDE R UNDER SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT, ON 29/09/2016 WHILE THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER / ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE ON 30/09/2016 AND THE ORDER DATED 22/ 04/2019 WAS PASSED AFTER CONSIDERING THOSE FACTS ON RECORD, SO THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECTIFI CATION UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE DEPARTMENT SEEKS THE REVIEW OF THE ORDER DT. 22/04/2019 IN ITA NOS. 490 & 491/CHD/2018 FOR THE A.YS 2013-14 & 2014-15 RESPECT IVELY. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT, HOWEVER THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. 5.1 ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KEDIA LEATHER AND LIQUOR LTD. R EPORTED IN (2007) 293 ITR 95 HELD AS UNDER : SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 CLEARLY EMPOWERS TH E TRIBUNAL AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DAT E OF THE ORDER TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB- SECTION(1) AND TO MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF A MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REVIEW ITS ORDER. 5.2 A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODU CTS LTD. REPORTED IN (2007) 293 ITR 132 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISION INDICATES THAT IN ORDER TO EXERCISE THE POWER VESTED IN IT UNDER SECT ION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE TRIBUNAL HA S TO ENSURE THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTORS ARE PRESENT: (A) THE APPLICATION IS MADE WITHIN 4 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. (B) THERE IS A MISTAK E APPARENT FROM THE RECORD WHICH IS BROUGHT TO ITS NO TICE BY EITHER THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS REGARDS THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED, IF THE AMENDM ENT SOUGHT HAS THE EFFECT OF ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT O R M.A.NOS. 145 & 146/CHD/2019 IN ITA NOS. 265 & 266/ CHD/2018- SHRI SADHU RAM RUPAL, & MARVEL DYERS & PROCESSORS P VT LTD, LUDHIANA 8 REDUCING A REFUND OR INCREASING THE LIABILITY OF TH E ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO GIVE PRIOR NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT IS PLAIN THAT THE PO WER TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A POWER TO REVIEW OR RECALL THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. RECTIFI CATION IS A SPECIES OF THE LARGER CONCEPT OF REVIEW. ALTHO UGH IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE PREREQUISITE FOR EXERCISE OF E ITHER POWER MAY BE SIMILAR (A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD), BY ITS VERY NATURE THE POWER TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE CANNOT RESULT IN THE RECALL AND REVIEW OF T HE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED OTHERWISE, WHAT CANNOT BE DONE DIRECTLY BY SEEKING A REVIEW OF AN ORDER CAN. BE ACHIEVED INDIRECTLY, BY SEEKING A RECTIFICATION OF THAT ORDER. THIS IS EVEN MORE SIGNIFICANT IN THE LIGHT O F THE FACT THAT UNDER THE ACT THERE IS NO EXPRESS POWER G IVEN TO THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW. 5.3 SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES P. LTD. REPORTED IN (2007) 293 ITR 163(DE LHI), THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAKES IN ITS O RDER. HOWEVER, IT IS PLAIN THAT THE POWER TO RECTIFY A MI STAKE IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO A POWER TO REVIEW OR RECALL THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. RECTIFICATION IS A SPECIES OF THE LAR GER CONCEPT OF REVIEW. ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE PREREQUISI TE FOR EXERCISE OF EITHER POWER MAY BE SIMILAR (A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD), BY ITS VERY NATURE THE POWER TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE CANNOT RESULT IN THE RECALL AND REVIEW OF T HE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. 6. WE THEREFORE BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO LAID D OWN IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASES DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT, ACCOR DINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, W E FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAM E ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. M.A.NOS. 145 & 146/CHD/2019 IN ITA NOS. 265 & 266/ CHD/2018- SHRI SADHU RAM RUPAL, & MARVEL DYERS & PROCESSORS P VT LTD, LUDHIANA 9 IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE M.AS FILED BY THE DEPARTME NT ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.01.2020. SD/- SD/- ( . . / N.K. SAINI) ( / SANJAY GARG) !'# / VICE PRESIDENT $%& / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 14.01.2020 3+'*4'5 $65* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $ '!% / THE APPELLANT 2. '(!% / THE RESPONDENT 3. - 7* / CIT 4. - 7* ( $ ' )/ THE CIT(A) 5. 58'*9 , $ '/9 , :;<= / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. <>.' / GUARD FILE 3 - / BY ORDER, ? / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR