DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana V. Sh. Saurav Jain, Ludhiana

MA 16/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5735 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2021
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 27; 132; 143(3); 142(1); 139(1); 254(2); 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH B, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) .., ! '# .. , $ %& BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI R.L. NEGI, JM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 15/CHD/2020 ( ./ ITA NO. 920/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 LUDHIANA. SHRI RAJAT JAIN, 9-A, AGGAR NAGAR, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB. ./ PAN NO: ABAPJ4619D / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 16 /CHD/2020 ( ./ ITA NO. 722/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 LUDHIANA. SHRI SAURAV JAIN, 9-A, AGGAR NAGAR, LUDHIANA, PUNJAB. ./ PAN NO: AETPJ9724P / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHOK KHANNA ADDL.CIT (DR) '# ! / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA $ % #&/ DATE OF HEARING : 28/04/2021 '()* #&/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 /04/2021 %'/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THESE TWO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS BY THE DEPARTM ENT ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 19/09/2019 IN ITA NO S. 920 & 922/CHD/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2016-17 PASSED BY THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT. 2. IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE DEPARTM ENT HAS STATED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO MAHARAJA GROUP OF CASES, L UDHIANA. A SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREM ISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 27.08.2015. ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME WAS ISSUED ON 30.09.2016. IN RESPONSE THERETO, A RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.94,59,120/- WAS 2 M.A. NO 15 & 16/CHD/2020 DCIT VS RAJAT JAIN & ONE AR. FILED BY THE AFORESAID ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 11.12.2017 AND RETURNED INC OME OF RS.94,59,120/- WAS ACCEPTED. AS THE INCOME RETUNED WAS INCLUDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.80, 00,000/- WHICH WAS 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAB WAS ALSO INITIATED ON THIS ACCOUNT. 2. FURTHER, A PENALTY U/S 271 AAB(L)(A) AMOUNTING TO RS.8.00 LAC WAS IMPOSED @10% ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 80.00 LACS ADMITTED BY THE FAMILY HEAD OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY ORDER DATED 28.02.2018. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A)-5, L UDHIANA. 2.1 THAT THE LD. CIT (A)-5, LUDHIANA VIDE ORDER DAT ED 28.05.2018 IN APPEAL NO.L31/IT/CIT(A)- 5/LDH/2017-18 CONFIRMED THE LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271A AB. AGGRIEVED WITH THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE IT AT, CHANDIGARH WITH ITA NO.920/CHD/2018. DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT 3 THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT VIDE COMPOSITE ORDER DATED 19.09.2019 HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING UPON ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. VEENA RANI & OTHERS VS. DOT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA IN ITA NO. 1238 TO 1240/ CHD/2018 FOR THE A.Y 2016-17 AND IN THE CASE OF M/S. R. D. PALACE PVT. LTD., LUDHIANA VS. D OT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA IN ITA NO. 1240 & 1242/CHD/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17 . IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS DECIDED THE CASE OF SMT. VEENA RANI & OTHERS RELYING UPON ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S SEL TEXTILES LTD. VS. D CIT IN ITA NO.695/CHD/2018 DATED 18.04.2019. IN THE ORDER, HON'BLE ITAT IN ITA NO.69 5/CHD/2018 HELD AS UNDER:- '12. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN Y INADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE WHICH WOULD FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF' UNDISCLOSED INCOME' AS DEFINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT. EXCEPT THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON DEBATABLE ISSUES, THERE IS NO CASE OF THE DEPARTMEN T IN RESPECT OF ANY INADMISSIBLE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WOULD COV ER THE SURRENDERED INCOME OFRS.14 CRORES. FROM THE FACTS ON THE FILE, IT IS ESTABLISH ED THAT THE AFORESAID SURRENDER OF RS.14 CRORES WAS BASED ON THE MERE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTHING INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT WAS DETECTED OR FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE AFORESAID AMOUNT FOR RS.14 CRORES WOULD NOT FALL IN THE DEFINITION OF 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 27 1AAB OF THE ACT AND HENCE, THE PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE ON THE SAID AMOUNT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 AAB OF THE ACT.' 3.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASES ARE THAT ASSESSMENT IN THESE CASES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED VIDE ORDERS DATED 11.12.2017 INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS U/S 271AAB OF THE IT. ACT,1961.THE AO HAS FINALIZED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS LEVYING PENALTIES U/S 271AAB(1)(A) AT THE RATE OF 10% AS THE 3 M.A. NO 15 & 16/CHD/2020 DCIT VS RAJAT JAIN & ONE AR. ASSESSEE(S) SURRENDERED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF R S.17 CRORES U/S 132(4) OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DUR ING THE SEARCH WHICH WAS ADDRESSED BY SH. SUKHDARSHAN KUMAR IN THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) O F THE I.T.ACT,1961 RECORDED ON 24.09.2015 WHILE ANSWERING THE QUESTION NO.30 ON BE HALF OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS SURRENDERED RS.17 CRORES AS ADDITIONAL INCOME AS UNDER:- Q30 .. ANS. AS SUBMITTED EARLIER, THE PROFITS EARNED BY TH E INDIVIDUALS ARE THOSE DERIVED FROM THE UNACCOUNTED AND DISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS FROM SALE AN D PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES, BULLION AND COMMODITY TRADING ETC, DURING THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. FY 2015-16. THESE ALSO INCLUDE CERTAIN RECEIVABLE ON ACCOUNT OF PROFITS EARNED FRO M THE SALE OF PROPERTIES ETC. SOME OF THESE PROFITS HAVE BEEN UTILIZED TO PURCHASE GOLD JEWELLE RY AND KEPT AS CASH ETC WHICH HAS BEEN SEIZED EARLIER BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM OUR RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AND FROM THE LOCKERS. SOME PROFITS HAVE BE EN UTILIZED FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ETC. AND ALSO AS TEMPORARY ADVANCE, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS MOMENT. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO AVOID ANY PROLONGED LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE OF MIND. I ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS OFFER TO DISCLOSE ADDITIONAL INCO ME OF RS. 17.00 CR THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- S.NO. AMOUNT (IN LACS) NAME FY 2014 - 15 FY 2015 - 16 1. M/S R.D. PALACE PVT. LTD. 200 100 2 M/S BIG DIGS RESORTS LTD. 100 50 3 M/S MAHARAJA LIGHT & TE NT SERVICE - 50 4 SUKHDARSHAN KUMAR - 230 5 RAMA RANI - 200 6 RAJAT JAIN - 80 7 VANI JAIN - 90 8 DEEPAK JAIN - 75 9 VEENA JAIN - 190 10 GAURAV JAIN - 80 11 SHWETA JAIN - 90 12 SAURAV JAIN - 80 13 NITI JAIN - 85 TOTAL 300 1400 THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ENTITIES MENTIONED AT SR.NO.L TO 3 ABOVE IS AS A RESULT OF CERTAIN UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS SUCH AS UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS, INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE ETC. AS REGARD PERSONS/INDIVIDUALS MENT IONED AT SR. NO. 4 TO 13, THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IS AS A RESULT OF UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS O F PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTIES, 4 M.A. NO 15 & 16/CHD/2020 DCIT VS RAJAT JAIN & ONE AR. SHARES/COMMODITIES, GOLD/SILVER/BULLION AND RECEIPT OF GIFTS. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME SO OFFERED FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSMENT YEARS AS MENTIONED ABOVE IS OVER AND ABOVE THE NORMAL INCOME OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED ENTITIES / INDIVIDUALS. ' 3.2 HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE ITAT, RESTRICTED THE PENAL TY UPTO THE VALUE OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION I.E. RS. NIL, IN THIS C ASE. THE RESPECTIVE CHART, AS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION. I T IS APPARENT THAT FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED IN CORRECT PROSPECTIVE IN THE ORDE RS IN ITA NO.920 & 922/CHD/2018 DATED 19.09.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT, CHANDIGARH. THESE ORDERS ARE REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED AND BRINGING TO YOUR NOTICE THAT PENALTY HAD BEEN C ORRECTLY LEVIED U/S 271AAB(L)(A) BY THE AO ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND RELIEF HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY ALLOWED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, THE M.A. IS FILED BEFORE HON'BLE ITAT. (FIGURE IN LAKHS) SR. PARTICULARS RAJAT JAIN SAURAV JAIN NO. AY2016 - 17 AY2016 - 17 1 JEWELLERY 0 0 2 SILVER 0 0 3 INCOME DECLARED 80 80 TOTAL 80 80 4. GROUNDS ON WHICH M.A. IS PROPOSED FOR FILING 4.1 THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THIS CASE IS FULLY COVERED UNDER SUB CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE(A) OF THE SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE SECTION 271 AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN VIEW OF THE FAMILY HEAD ADMISSION IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEREIN REPLY TO Q NO.21 THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY CONCEDED THAT THE TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE DIARY ANNEXED AS ANN-AA5 ARE UNRECO RDED TRANSACTIONS AND IS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF COMPANY ASSESSEE. 4.2 THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN REPLY TO Q NO.30 IN HIS STATEMENT RECORD ED U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 HAS FURTHER ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF HIS GROUP INCLUDING COMPANY ASSESSEE OF RS.14 CRORE IN F.Y. 2015-16 AND RS.3 CRORE IN F.Y. 2014-15 IN AGGREGATE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE DIARY MARKED AS ANN-AA5 AND AS SUCH CASE FALLS UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (I) OF CLAUSE(A) OF THE SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE SECT ION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4.3 THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE F ACTS OF THE CASE WHICH ARE DULY COVERED UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (II) OF CLAUSE (A) OF THE SUB SECT ION (1) OF THE SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME 5 M.A. NO 15 & 16/CHD/2020 DCIT VS RAJAT JAIN & ONE AR. TAX ACT, 1961 IN VIEW OF THE FAMILY HEAD OF THE ASS ESEE REPLY IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEREIN REPLY TO Q. NO.22 HE HAS SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE AFORESAID UNDISCLOSED INCOME RE CORDED IN THE DIARY MARKED AS ANN-AA5 WAS EARNED. 4.4 THAT THE HON'BLE HAT HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE MA TERIAL FACT OF ASSESSEE'S CATEGORICAL ADMISSION IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEREIN THE ASSESEE COMPANY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SH. SUKHDARSHA N KUMAR (FAMILY HEAD) WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE DIARY MARKED AS ANN -AA5 IN REPLY TO Q NO. 19 HAS ADMITTED THAT 'SIR THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT RECORDED IN RE GULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS', AND THUS THE FACTS OF THE CASE FALLS UNDER THE SUB CLAUSE (A) OF THE C LAUSE (C) OF THE EXPLANATION TO THE SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4.5 THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE RATIO DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS SANDDEP CHANDOK A GAINST WHICH THE SLP FILED BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HON'BLE APEX COURT (2018) 93 TAXMANN.COM (406) (SC) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF SEARCH ADMITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED, THEN PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 271AAB WOULD AUTOMATICALLY ATTRACT. AS IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE INGREDIENT S OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION OF SECTION 271AAB ARE FULFILLED, THE PENALTY U/S 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS LIABLE. 4.6 THAT IT MAY BE NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION CARRIED OUT U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 27.08.2015 CERTA IN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS (ANN-AA5) WERE FOUND WHICH HAS PROMPTED THE ASSESSEE TO INCLU DE THE ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN HIS/HER RETURNED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. OTHERWISE THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE GONE SCOT-FREE. THUS MERE INCLUSION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN A RETURN WAS FILED U/S 139(1) WILL NOT AB SOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM PENALTY U/S 271AAB. 5. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO RECTIFY THE AFORESAID MISTAKE IN ITS ORDER. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. SR.DR REIT ERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID MISC. APPLICATIONS. 4. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 27/04/2021 WHICH READ AS UNDER: SUB: MA NOS. 15 AND 16/CHANDI/2020 IN THE CASES OF SH. RAJAT JAIN AND SH. SAURAV JAIN FOR A/Y 2016-17 SIR, 6 M.A. NO 15 & 16/CHD/2020 DCIT VS RAJAT JAIN & ONE AR. RESPECTFULLY THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED FOR YOUR HO NOUR'S KIND CONSIDERATION AND NECESSARY ADJUDICATION: - ITA NOS 920 AND 922/CHANDI/2018 IN THE CASES OF SH RAJAT JAIN AND SH SAURAV JAIN WERE ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE HON'BLE BENCH VIDE ORDER 19 . 09. 2019 VIDE WHICH THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271AAB WAS DELETED IN BOTH THE CASES WHILE DECI DING THESE APPEALS, THE HON'BLE BENCH RELIED ON AN EARLIER DECISION OF THE HON'BLE' BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT VEENA RANI AND OTHERS IN ITA NOS. 1238 TO 1242/CHANDI/2018 DECIDED VIDE ORDE R 12.07.2019. THE DEPARTMENT HAD FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IN THE CASE OF SH RAJAT JAIN AND SH SAURAV JAIN WHICH ARE LISTED FOR HEARING FOR TOMORR OW I.E 28.04 2021. THE DEPARTMENT HAD FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS AGAINST ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH IN ITA NOS 1238 TO 1242/CHAND/2018 REFERRED TO SUPRA WHICH HAVE ALREAD Y BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH IN MA NOS 3 TO 7/CHANDI/2020 VIDE ORDER DATED 06 10.20 20. COPY OF ORDER DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IN MA NOS. 3 TO 7/CHANDI /2020 IS ENCLOSED FOR FACILITY OF REFERENCE. IT IS PRAYED THAT AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRES ENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ALREADY ADJUDICATED BY THE HON'BLE BENCH THE ISSUE MAY KINDLY BE ADJUDICATED ACCORDINGLY THANKING YOU YOURS FAITHFULLY (ASHWANI KUMAR) C. A COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS ENCL AS ABOVE DATED 27.04.2021 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ITAT BENCH B, CHANDIGARH WHILE DECIDING THE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 920 & 922/CHD/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 19/09/2019 FOLLOWED THE EARLIER ORDER DATED 12/07/2019 IN THE CASES OF SMT. VEENA RANI & OTHERS, LUDHIANA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA IN ITA NOS. 1238 TO 1242 /CHD/2018. AGAINST THE SAID 7 M.A. NO 15 & 16/CHD/2020 DCIT VS RAJAT JAIN & ONE AR. ORDER ALSO, THE DEPARTMENT FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATIONS BEING M.A. NO. 3 TO 07/CHD/2020 WHICH HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THIS BE NCH OF THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 06/10/2020 AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEE N GIVEN IN PARA 2 AND 3 OF THE SAID ORDER DATED 06/10/2020 WHICH READ AS UNDER : 2. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE STATED MISC. APPLICATIONS RE VEAL THAT THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH THESE APPLICATIONS WANTS TO CONT EST THE CASES AFRESH. REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO CERTAIN ADDITIONAL FACTS AND EVIDENCES STATING THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN NOT TAKING N OTE OF THESE ADDITIONAL FACTS AND EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THE ATTENTION OF THE LD. DR WAS INVITED TO THE RECORD OF THE CASE BUT HE FAILED TO POINT OUT W HICH FACT OR EVIDENCE ON THE FILE HAS ESCAPED ATTENTION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH C AN BE SAID TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IN FACT, THE DEPARTME NT THROUGH THESE APPLICATIONS SEEKS THE REVIEW OF THE ORDER BY WAY O F PLEADING ADDITIONAL FACTS WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN A RECTIFICATION A PPLICATION U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THIS TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HA VE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. MOREOVER, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD IN THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2019 (SUPRA) PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID CASES. IF THE DEPARTMENT HAS ANY GRIE VANCE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER, PROPER COURSE IS TO AGITATE THE SAM E BEFORE THE NEXT APPELLATE AUTHORITY / HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THE HON'B LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 'COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO.' 1993 203 ITR 497 (BOM.), WHILE REL YING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F 'T. S. BALARAM, ITO V. VOLKART BROTHERS' [1971] 82 ITR 50 AND FURTHER R ELYING UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS HAS CATEGORICA LLY HELD THAT THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 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; MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUM ENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. EVEN FAILURE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSI DER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSI ON IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISD ICTION UNDER SECTION 254(2) TO PASS THE SECOND ORDER. HOWEVER, IN THIS C ASE THE LD. DR HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT WHAT FACT OR EVEN ANY ARGUMENT COMING FROM RECORD, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER IN THE ORDER DA TED 12.7.2019. 8 M.A. NO 15 & 16/CHD/2020 DCIT VS RAJAT JAIN & ONE AR. 3. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND THE LEGAL POSITION AS STATED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CAPTIONED APPLICATI ONS AND THE SAME ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 7. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATIONS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATIONS NO. 03 TO 07/CHD/2020 IN THE CASES OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, LUDHIANA VS SMT. VEENA RANI & OTHERS, SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER DATED 06/10/2020, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS O F THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT IONS OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28/04/2021) SD/- SD/- .. .., (R.L. NEGI) (N.K. SAINI ) $ %&/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT DATE: 28/04/2021 *RANJAN (+ #,- .-#/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ /#/ CIT 4. $ /# ()/ THE CIT(A) 5. -23 #4, & 4, 67839/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 38 :%/ GUARD FILE