, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 147/AHD/2014 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 3150/AHD/2010 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DCIT, CIRCLE-9, AHMEDABAD V/S . SHRI GOKALDAS POPATLAL PATEL, PROP. OF M/S. G.P. PATEL, 21, SUJAN BUNGALOWS, NR. SHREYANSH TEKRA, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD-15 PAN NO. ACKPP 9436 H (APPLICANT) .. (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI SANJAY R. SHAH, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 16/09/2016 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/09/2016 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DIRECTED A T THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE POINTING OUT AN APPARENT ERROR IN THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 25.10.2013. 2. IT IS PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED BAD DEBTS OF RS.48,73,961/- WHICH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED B Y THE LD. AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.10.2013 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E BUT FAILED TO LOOK INTO THE FACT THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE AB OVE AMOUNT IN ITS INCOME IN ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER MA NO. 147/AHD/ 2014 DCIT VS. SHRI GOKULDAS POPATLAL PATEL AY 2007- 08 - 2 - CONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO LD. DR, THE TRIBUNAL F AILED TO NOTE AS TO WHETHER THE REQUIREMENT U/S 36(2)(1) WAS FULFILLED OR NOT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THIS FACT IS DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE TOOK U S THROUGH PARAGRAPH NO.2 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 17.07.2009 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1998 TO 31.03.2007. THE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN RECEIVING THE PAYMENTS FROM EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NADIAD. THE ASSE SSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THE UNRECOVERED AMOUNT IN ITS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT COMMIT ANY ERROR IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY. 4. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMEN TS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY C ONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. BY WAY OF THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION, THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO RE-EXAMINE THE FACT THAT WHETHE R THE ASSESSEE HAS EVER SHOWN THE AMOUNT AS ITS INCOME AND FULFILL STA TUTORY REQUIREMENT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(2)(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS ASPECT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAGRAPH 2 OF ITS ORDER AND NO APPARENT MISTAKE IS BEING POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE AS TO HOW THE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMITTED AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN MA NO. 147/AHD/ 2014 DCIT VS. SHRI GOKULDAS POPATLAL PATEL AY 2007- 08 - 3 - APPRECIATING THIS FACT. ACCORDINGLY, THIS MISCELLA NEOUS APPLICATION IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED 16/09/2016 *BIJU T. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $% / THE APPELLANT 2. &'$% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. (( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. ,-.&// , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .012 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, / ITAT, AHMEDABAD