, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH C, KOLKATA () BEFORE , , , , . .. . . .. . , ,, , SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! ! ! ! /AND ''# $% ''# $% ''# $% ''# $%, , , , & & & & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER !' !' !' !' / M.A.NO.15/KOL/2012 A/O ITA NO . 902/KOL/2010 &%( )*/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ($, / APPELLANT ) I.T.O., WARD-1(3), HOOGHLY - % - - VERSUS - . (./$,/ RESPONDENT ) SHRI ANANTA ROY, KOLKATA (PAN:ACTPR 0451 R) $, 0 1 / FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI B.K.DAS ./$, 0 1 / FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI V.N.PUROHIT 2%3 0 /DATE OF HEARING : 21.09.2012 4) 0 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :.21.09.2012. 5 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. . . .. . ) )) ), , , , PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THE ABOVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENUE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 10.09.2010 VIDE ITA NO. 902/KOL/2010 PERTAINING TO A.YR. 2005-06. 2. BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE REVENUE WA NTS TO RECALL ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 10.09.2010 BY STATING THAT THE HONBLE TAT. C BENCH KOLKATA IN ITS ORDER DA TED 10.09.2010 IN ITA NO. 902/KOL!2010 HAD DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A) BY RELYING ON THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE ONL Y TO THE LABOURERS AND NOT TO THE CONTRACTORS AND AS SUCH LIABILITY OF DEDUCTION OF T AX DID NOT ARISE THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING HAD S UBMITTED VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 27.12.2007 THAT LABOUR CHARGES INCLUDED PAYME NT TO DIFFERENT VARIABLE LABOUR 2 CONTRACTORS SO THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT IS NOT BORNE OUT BY THE FACTS OF THE CASE EMANATING FROM T HE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD. THUS THE HONBLE ITATS FINDINGS BASED ON THE ERRON EOUS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION/ PETITION IS BEING PREFERRED FOR DUE CONSIDERATION B Y THE HON BLE ITAT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL ESPECIALLY AT PARA NO.6 WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THAT LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT CONT ROVERT THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THAT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SAVE AND EXCEPT RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A). THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT IF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IT WILL T ANTAMOUNT TO REVIEWING OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL WHICH THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT EMPOWERED TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. HE REQUESTED TO DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE REVENU E. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ON CAREF UL PERUSAL OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING PARA NO. REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE NO.3, WE FIND THAT THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE REVENUE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS BORNE OUT OF RECORDS. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDERS OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE WE DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF T HE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.09.2012. SD./- SD/- ''# $% ''# $% ''# $% ''# $%, , , , & & & & GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. . . .. . , , , , , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( ( ) )) ) DATE: 21.09.2012. R.G.(.P.S.) 3 5 0 .&&6 76)8- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI ANANTA RAY, C/O V.N.PUROHIT & CO., 32B, GANESH CHANDRA AVENUE, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA. 2 I.T.O., WARD-1 (3), HOOGHLY. 3. CIT XX, KOLKATA 4. CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA. . 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. /6 .&/ TRUE COPY, 5%2/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES