Shri. Kamaljit Singh Prop., Bathinda V. Income tax Officer,WARD 1(1), Bathinda

MA 18/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6236 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI KALIA LD
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A NO.18(ASR)/2018 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.675(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:200 9-10 SH. KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. M/S DHANOA BROTHERS, BATHINDA. [PAN: AZOPS 2539R] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. ASHWANI KALIA (LD. CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 15.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.04.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: 1. THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF THIS MISC. APPLICATION DATED 25-04- 2018, SOUGHT RECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2017 PASSED IN ITA NO. 675/ASR/2013 ON THE GROUND THAT, DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH, IT WAS ARGUED THAT I N THE CASE IF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT TO BE ADMITTED BY CIT(A), THEN THERE WAS NO POINT IN SEEKING THE REMAND REPORT OF TH E AO ON ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS. IT WAS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE CIT(A ) EITHER TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDE R RULE- 46A. SEEKING REMAND REPORT WAS CONSEQUENT TO THE ADMI TTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS THE ADMITTANCE OF ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE REMAND REPORT OF TH E AO. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH TH AT LD. M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 2 CIT(A) MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE FILED BY ASSESSEE AND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. FURTHER AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND GOING THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION IT WAS CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTE D BY HONBLE BENCH THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WILL B E SET ASIDE AND SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) WITH DIRECTIONS TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH TAKI NG INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. FURTHER, IT WAS CATEGORICALLY DECIDED BY THE HONBLE BENCH AT THE TIME O F HEARING ITSELF THAT THE CASE SHALL BE REMITTANCE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) ON MAIN GROUND OF APPEAL ACCORDINGLY NO ARGUMENTS ON M ERIT WERE MADE BY ASSESSEES COUNSEL BEFORE THE HONBLE BENCH. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE BENCH WAS RECEIVE D IT WAS FOUND THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON THE MAIN GROUND OF ADDITION OF RS.15,75000/-, INST EAD OF SETTING ASIDE THE CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THIS MISC. APPLICATION I S BEING FILED WITH A REQUEST TO RECALL THE ORDER OF THE BENCH AND TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WITH DIRECTIONS TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. ON THE CONTRARY , THE LD. DR REFUTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE BENCH HAS NOT ONLY DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE U/S 46A OF THE ACT BUT ALSO DECIDED THE SAME ON MERIT HENCE NO RECTIFICATION CAN BE ENTERTAINED . M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 3 3. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, VIDE ORDER DATED 25-10-2017 WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IN PARA NO.7 THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 TO THE INSTANT CASE AND PASSED ELAB ORATE ORDER WHILE AFFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) F OR REJECTION OF APPLICATION U/S 46 OF THE RULES, 1962. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND READY REFERENCE THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER IS REP RODUCED HEREIN BELOW. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS NOT IN CONTROVERSY THAT DESPITE OFFERING 17 OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSE E DID NOT CO-OPERATE WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND ON THE ONE OR THE OTHER PRETEXT EVADED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.25,20,000/-IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, IN COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES, FINDING NO ALTERNATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROCEEDED WITH THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 AND FURTHER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO TRYING TO GE T C & F OF A CEMENT COMPANY AND APPOINTED NEW AS WELL AS HIS SOLE DEALERS TO TAKE THE SAID C&F AND RECEIVED SOME AMOUNTS AS REFUNDABLE SECURITY DEPOSIT FROM THEM AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED A LIST OF 81 SUCH PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,500/- EACH DURING THE PERIOD FROM 29.11.2008 TO 01.12.2008 I.E., WITHIN 3 DAYS INVARIABLY IN CASH I N EACH CASE, FINALLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE PEAK AMOUNT AT RS.15,86,371/- AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT STANDS/PLEAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IGNORANT ABOUT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ERSTWHILE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT, WHILE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER WAS THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK REPRESENTED THE ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE CLIENTS WHO WERE DESIROUS TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND THIS FACT ALSO STOOD CORROBORATED FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.50,000/- UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME. FURTHER THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED UPON M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 4 A COPY OF REGISTRATION DEED NO. 9120 DATED 12.09.2008 IN ORDER TO SHOW THAT ONE PERSON SH. JAGSIR SINGH HAVE BEEN SOLD A PROPERTY WORTH OF RS.15,00,000/- AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF ANOTHER PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED THE SAME IN HIS ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK ON 02.12.2008 AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN ON 04.12.2008 FOR PURCHASE OF LAND IN VILLAGE BHOKRA IN THE NAME OF SH. JAGSIR SINGH, SMT. GURPREET KAUR AND SHRI KAMALJIT SINGH FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.6,05,000/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS AGAIN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. THE REMAINING AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2008 AND RETURNED TO THE SAID OF SH. JASGIR SINGH BECAUSE HE WAS NOT INTERESTED TO PURCHASE OF HIS PROPERTY. AS WE REALIZE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR, ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK WERE OUT OF THE SECURITIES ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM 81 PERSONS AND EACH PERSON DEPOSITED RS.19,500/- AND IT WAS NEVER BEEN CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE AXIS BANK WAS OUT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION U/S 46A OF THE I.T. RULE 1962 CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT FROM TH E PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS FOUND THAT AO AT NO STAGE REFUSED TO ADMIT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED EVEN THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT ANY CASE THAT WHICH WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CALLED FOR PRODUCED BY THE A.O. AND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 17 OCCASIONS DURING THE MORE ONE YEAR BUT AT NO STAGE THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED ANY INTENTION TO ADDUCE ANY SUCH EVIDENCE AS IS BEING ADDUCED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS PREVENTED BY A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE AO, AND ALSO PREVENTED BY A M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 5 SUFFICIENT CASE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE AO ANY EVIDENCE WHICH WAS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE OBSERVATION MADE BY LD. CIT(A), WHILE DECIDING AN APPLICATION U/S 46A OF THE APPELLANT HEREIN, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT HAS NOT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC GROUND WITH REGARD TO THE REJECTION OF ITS APPLICATION BEFORE US, HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY REJECTED THE SAME BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE ANY REASON TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS GROUND TO FALL UNDER THE SUB-RULE OF CLAUSE (1) SUBCLAUSE (B) AND (C) OF RULE 46A. 3.1 THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER THE BENCH WHILE HEARING THE APPEAL HAS GIVEN ANY DECISION. MAY BE THE ASSESSEE GOT THE IMPRESSION IN GOOD FAITH. EVEN IF THE IMPRESSIO N WENT TO THE ASSESSEE THEN ALSO THE SAME DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON THE ORDER OF THE COURT AS IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT A JU DGE CAN RECALL THE ORDER AND CHANGE HIS MIND IN EXTREME CASE WHERE THE THOUGH DRAFT COPY SIGNED AND DICTATED IN THE OPEN, AS HELD IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALBHAI RATANBHAI ROHIT & ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJRAT, [SLP(CRIMINAL)453/2014)], BY THE APEX COURT. FOR RE ADY REFERENCE AND BREVITY THE RELEVANT PART OF DECISION RE FERRED ABOVE IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. D. . THE APPEAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 11.12.2013 AND THE COURT TOOK A VIEW THAT SANCTION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT UNDER SECTION 197 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS CR.P.C .) WAS NECESSARILY REQUIRED, AND IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ORDER WAS DICTATED IN OPEN COURT ALLOWING THE APPEA L ON TECHNICAL ISSUE. HOWEVER, THE ORDER DICTATED IN OPEN COURT AND ACQUITTING THE PETITIONERS VIDE ORDER DATED 11. 12.2013 WAS RECALLED BY THE COURT SUO MOTO VIDE ORDER DATED M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 6 27.12.2013 AND DIRECTED THE APPEAL TO BE RE- HEARD . THE ORDER HAD BEEN RECALLED ON THE GROUND THAT THE COURT WANT ED TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE FURTHER AS TO WHETHER IN THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE THE ACCUSED HAD BEE N POLICE CONSTABLES, THE OFFENCE COULD NOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED UNDER THE COMMISSION OF THEIR DUTY WHERE SANCTION UNDER SECTION 197 CR.P.C. WOULD BE ATTRACTED. HENCE, THIS PETITION. 3. . 4. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCIBLE SUBMISSION ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS THAT ONCE THE ORDER HAD BEEN DIC TATED IN OPEN COURT, THE ORDER TO REVIEW OR RECALL IS NOT PERMISS IBLE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 362 CR.P.C. FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT SECTION 362 CR.P.C. PUTS AN EMBARGO TO CALL, RECALL OR REVIEW ANY JUDGMENT OR ORDER PASSED IN CRIMINAL CAS E ONCE IT HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED AND SIGNED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE ORDER WAS DICTATED IN THE COURT, BU T HAD NOT BEEN SIGNED. 5. IN MOHAN SINGH V. KING-EMPEROR 1943 ILR (PAT) 28, A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS EXAMINED WHEREIN THE FACTS HAD BE EN THAT THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED BY THE HIGH COURT HOLDING TH AT THE TRIAL WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND A DIRECTION WAS ISSUED TO RELEASE THE APPELLANT THEREIN. HOWEVER, BEFORE THE JUDGMENT COULD BE TYPED AND SIGNED THE COURT DISCOVERED THAT THE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION WHICH HAD BEEN RELIED UPON WAS AN ACCU RATE COPY AND THAT THE SPECIAL JUDGE HAD JURISDICTION IN RESP ECT OF THE OFFENCE UNDER WHICH THE APPELLANT THEREIN HAD BEEN CONVICTED . THEREUPON, THE ORDER DIRECTING THE RELEASE OF THE A CCUSED WAS RECALLED AND THE APPEAL WAS DIRECTED TO BE HEARD DE NOVO. WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR RE-HEARING, THE OBJECTION TH AT THE COURT DID NOT HAVE A POWER TO RECALL THE ORDER AND HEAR THE APPEAL DE NOVO, WAS REJECTED . 6. IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 362 CR.P.C. WHILE DECIDING THE CASE, THE PATNA HIGH COURT RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN AMODINI DASEE V. DARSAN GHOSE, 1911 ILR (CAL) 828 AND THE JUDGMENT OF ALLAH ABAD HIGH COURT IN EMPEROR V. PRAGMADHO SINGH, 1932 ILR (ALL. ) 132. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN REITERATED BY THE DIVISION BE NCH OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN STATE OF BOMBAY V. GEOFFREY MA NNERS & CO., AIR 1951 BOM. 49. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD TA KEN THE M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 7 VIEW THAT UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS SIGNED AND SEALED, IT IS NOT A JUDGMENT IN STRICT LEGAL SENSE AND THEREFORE, IN EX CEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER CAN BE RECALLED AND ALTERE D TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. 7. IN SANGAM LAL V. RENT CONTROL AND EVICTION OFFICER, ALLAHABAD & ORS ., AIR 1966 ALL. 221, WHILE DEALING WITH THE RENT CONTROL MATTER, THE COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSI ON THAT UNTIL A JUDGMENT IS SIGNED AND SEALED AFTER DELIVER ING IN COURT, IT IS NOT A JUDGMENT AND IT CAN BE CHANGED O R ALTERED AT ANY TIME BEFORE IT IS SIGNED AND SEALED. 8. THIS COURT HAS ALSO DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN SURENDRA SINGH & ORS. V. STATE OF U.P ., AIR 1954 SC 194 OBSERVING AS UNDER: NOW UP TO THE MOMENT THE JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED JUD GES HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THEIR MIND. THERE IS A SORT OF 'LOCUS PAENITENTIAE' AND INDEED LAST MINUTE ALTERATIONS OF TEN DO OCCUR. THEREFORE, HOWEVER MUCH A DRAFT JUDGMENT MAY HAVE B EEN SIGNED BEFOREHAND, IT IS NOTHING BUT A DRAFT TILL F ORMALLY DELIVERED AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. ONLY THEN D OES IT CRYSTALLISE INTO A FULL FLEDGED JUDGMENT AND BECOME OPERATIVE. IT FOLLOWS THAT THE JUDGE WHO 'DELIVERS' THE JUDGMENT, OR CAUSES IT TO BE DELIVERED BY A BROTHER JUDGE, MUST BE IN EXIS TENCE AS A MEMBER OF THE COURT AT THE MOMENT OF DELIVERY SO THAT HE CAN, IF NECESSARY, STOP DELIVERY AND SAY THAT HE HA S CHANGED HIS MIND . THERE IS NO NEED FOR HIM TO BE PHYSICALLY PRESENT IN COURT BUT HE MUST BE IN EXISTENCE AS A MEMBER OF TH E COURT AND BE IN A POSITION TO STOP DELIVERY AND EFFECT AN ALT ERATION SHOULD THERE BE ANY LAST MINUTE CHANGE OF MIND ON HIS PART . IF HE HANDS IN A DRAFT AND SIGNS IT AND INDICATES THAT HE INTENDS THAT TO BE THE FINAL EXPOSITORY OF HIS VIEWS IT CAN BE ASSU MED THAT THOSE ARE STILL HIS VIEWS AT THE MOMENT OF DELIVERY IF HE IS ALIVE AND IN A POSITION TO CHANGE HIS MIND BUT TAKES NO STEPS TO ARREST DELIVERY. BUT ONE CANNOT ASSUME THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGE D HIS MIND IF HE IS NO LONGER IN A POSITION TO DO SO. A JUDGE'S RESPONSIBILITY IS HEAVY AND WHEN A MAN'S LIFE AND L IBERTY HANG UPON HIS DECISION NOTHING CAN BE LEFT TO CHANCE OR DOUBT OR CONJECTURE; ALSO, A QUESTION OF PUBLIC POLICY IS IN VOLVED. AS WE HAVE INDICATED, IT IS FREQUENTLY THE PRACTICE TO SE ND A DRAFT, SOMETIMES A SIGNED DRAFT, TO A BROTHER JUDGE WHO AL SO HEARD THE CASE. THIS MAY BE MERELY FOR HIS INFORMATION, OR FO R CONSIDERATION AND CRITICISM. THE MERE SIGNING OF TH E DRAFT DOES NOT NECESSARILY INDICATE A CLOSED MIND. WE FEEL IT WOULD BE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY TO LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN FOR AN INVESTIGATION WHETHER A DRAFT SENT BY A JUDGE WAS INTENDED TO EMB ODY HIS M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 8 FINAL AND UNALTERABLE OPINION OR WAS ONLY INTENDED TO BE A TENTATIVE DRAFT SENT WITH AN UNWRITTEN UNDERSTANDIN G THAT HE IS FREE TO CHANGE HIS MIND SHOULD FRESH LIGHT DRAWN UP ON HIM BEFORE THE DELIVERY OF JUDGMENT. 9 10. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO EXCEPTION CAN BE TAKEN TO THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE INSTANT CASE. 12. THE PETITION IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT AND IS ACCO RDINGLY DISMISSED. 3.2 FROM THE DICTUM OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IT IS CLEAR THAT UNTIL AND UNLESS THE ORDER IS SIGNED AND SEALE D CANNOT BE TREATED AS FINAL AND AS PER WISDOM OF THE COU RT, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORDER CAN BE RECALLED AND ALTERED TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, EVEN IF IT WAS DICTATED I N THE OPEN COURT. HENCE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE BENCH HAD SHOWN THEIR MIND TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE THE RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER IS NECESSARY, IS NOT SUSTAINABL E. 4. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE THAT NO ARGUMENTS ON MERIT WERE MADE ON THE BELIEF THAT THE CASE SHALL BE REMITT ED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE HAVE AGAIN PE RUSED THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IT STANDS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT ITS CASE QUA MERIT, WHICH WERE ALSO M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 9 SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH BY THE BENCH IN ITS ORDER, FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND READY REFERENCE REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. WHILE COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE AND SPECIFIC FOR ADJUDICATION OF GROUND NO.2, WE HAVE REALIZED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAKE OUT HIS CASE IN ANY STR ETCH OF IMAGINATION BECAUSE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY TAKEN THE STAND WITH REGARD T O CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.25,20,000/-, BY EXPLAINING THAT HE WA NTED TO GET C & F OF A CEMENT COMPANY AND APPOINTED NEW AND SOLE DEALERS FROM WHOM SOME AMOUNTS IN THE SHAP E OF REFUNDABLE SECURITY WAS RECEIVED. IN SUPPORT O F THE SAID CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LIST OF 8 1 PERSONS WHICH WAS DULY SIGNED BY 81 PERSONS AND FURTHER STATED THAT FROM EACH SUCH PERSON AN AMOUNT OF RS.19,500/- WAS RECEIVED. IT WAS NEVER BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY OR IN DIRECTLY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DOUBT IN THE INTEGRITY OF HIS COUNSEL AND /OR SUBMISSIONS OF HIS COUNSEL. ONCE THE VAKALTNAMA HAS BEEN FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY, WHICH IN THIS CA SE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED, EVERY AUTHORITY CONFERRED TO ITS COUNSEL TO PLEAD HIS CASE BY TAKING ANY GROUND/OBJE CTION AND OR ANY DEFENCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF WRONG SUBMISSIONS HAS BEEN MADE BY COUNSEL ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE BY GETTING SIGNATURE OR WITH OR WIT HOUT HIS ASSENT, THEN ALSO BECAUSE OF VAKALTNAMA, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR CONSEQUENCES DIRECTLY OR IND IRECTLY. IF WE SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE ISSUE UNDER HAND AS IT REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN STAND THAT HE HAD RECEIVED SECURITY ADVANCE OF 81 PERSONS AND ALSO F ILED A LIST OF WHICH IS SIGNED BY 81 PERSONS IN THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDI NG THE SAME WAS DENIED ON THE PRETEXT THAT THE ASSESSE E BEING IGNORANT HAVING NO PROPER KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE COUNSEL WHILE THE TRUTH O F THE MATTER WAS DIFFERENT, IT PRIMA-FACIE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED FORGE AND FABRICATED DOCUMENT S IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSE E ALONG WITH HIS ERSTWHILE COUNSEL LIABLE FOR THE APP ROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW AND EVEN OTHERWISE IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY INITIATED ANY CRIMINAL PROCEED INGS AGAINST HIS ERSTWHILE COUNSEL FOR MAKING FORGE/FALS E CLAIM IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FROM THE FACTS AS M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 10 EMERGED FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE STAGE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION, THAT THERE ARE PLETHORA OF CONCOCTED STORIES AND MALAFID E CLAIMS WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY RECEIPT OF HAVING RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT FROM THE PROPRIETIES BUYER AND EVEN OTHERWISE FROM THE PROPE RTY DOCUMENT IT DOES NOT REFLECTS THAT THE SAME HAVE BE EN PURCHASED THROUGH ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERATION AMOUNT HAS ALSO BEEN GIVEN BY ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAD E SALE OF MORE THAN RS.1 CRORE, THEREFORE, FROM THE TOTAL SALE IT CAN EASILY BE CONSTRUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MUCH COMPETENT AND KNOWLEDGEABLE TO RUN THE BUSINESS AND HAVING BASIC SENSE AT LEAST, THEREFORE, THE EXPLANA TION THAT BEING IGNORANT HAVING NO PROPER KNOWLEDGE ABOU T THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE COUNSEL SEEMS TO BE IL LOGICAL AND IGNORANT OF LAW OR ITS IMPROPER KNOWLEDGE HAVE NO EXCUSE IN LAW. ON THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER ANY STATUTORY EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOUR CE OF RS.25,20,000/-. HENCE, WE AFFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.15,86,371/-. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NOS. 1, 4 & 5 NO SPECIFIC AVERMENTS/ARGUMENT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE LD. AR, HENCE, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION A S THE SAME ARE FORMAL IN NATURE. NOW COMING TO GROUND NO.3 AS TO CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/- OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES ON ADHOC BASIS AS IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR THAT TOT AL EXPENSES WHICH IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.2 LAKHS APPROXIMATELY WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST OF RS.87,722/- AND DEPRECATION OF RS.38,753/- WHICH IN ACTUAL FREQUENCIES, TOTAL EXPENSES COME TO RS.78,00 0/- APPROXIMATELY AND OUT OF THESE EXPENSES, RS.50,000/ - WAS DISALLOWED. WE HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION AND GONE THROUGH WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE IT IS NOT SPECIFIED THAT HOW MUCH EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE QUA TELEPHONE, VEHICLE, STATIONARY, ELECTRICITY ETC. IN P&L ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, AS THE AS SESSEE M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 11 HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EXPENDITURE VOUCHERS OR O THER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT,, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED A SUM O F RS.50,000/- IN LUMPSUM OUT OF EXPENSES FROM THE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPE NSES WHICH IS OF RS.20,0524/- WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST OF RS.82,722/- AND DEPRECIATION OF RS.38,753/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT COMES TO RS.74,549/-ONLY, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.50,000/- OUT OF THE SAID EXPENSES WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION EXCESSIVELY HIGH, THEREFORE, WE RESTRICT THE SAME T O THE TUNE OF RS.7,500/- ONLY, BEING 10% OF EXPENSES OF RS.75,000/-. HENCE, GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 4.2 LET US TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF LAW AS APPLICABLE FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER ON THE GROUN D OF ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. ORDERS OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 254 (1) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AFTER GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT. (2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOU R YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER, WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MI STAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB- SECTION (1), AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT AN AMENDMENT WHICH HAS THE EFFECT OF ENHANCING AN ASSESSMENT OR REDUCING A REFUND OR OTHERWISE INC REASING THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE, SHALL NOT BE MADE UNDER THIS SUB- SECTION UNLESS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN NOTICE TO T HE ASSESSEE OF ITS INTENTION TO DO SO AND HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE A R EASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4.2 FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.254(2) IT IS CLEAR THAT T RIBUNAL MAY AT ANY TIME WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF TH E MONTH, IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS PASSED, WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY M ISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IN APPROPRIATE CASES. FURTHER, M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 12 MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM T HE RECORD IS RECTIFIABLE. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE APPLICATION OF SE CTION 254(2), A MISTAKE MUST EXIST AND THE SAME MUST BE APPARENT FROM T HE RECORD. THE POWER TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE, HOWEVER, DOE S NOT COVER CASES WHERE A REVISION OR REVIEW OF THE ORDER IS I NTENDED. MISTAKE MEANS TO TAKE OR UNDERSTAND WRONGLY OR INACCUR ATELY; TO MAKE AN ERROR IN INTERPRETING, IT IS AN ERROR; A FAULT, A MISUNDERSTANDING, A MISCONCEPTION. APPARENT MEANS VISIB LE; CAPABLE OF BEING SEEN; EASILY SEEN; OBVIOUS; PLAIN. A MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS ONE WHICH I S PATENT, WHICH IS OBVIOUS AND WHOSE DISCOVERY IS NOT DEPEN D ON ARGUMENT OR ELABORATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMENDMENT OF AN ORDER DOES NOT MEAN OBLITERATION OF THE ORDER ORIGIN ALLY PASSED AND ITS SUBSTITUTION BY A NEW ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSI BLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2). FURTHER, WHERE AN ERROR IS FAR FROM SELF-EVIDENT, IT CEASES TO BE AN APPARENT ER ROR. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT A MISTAKE CAPABLE OF BEING RECTIFIE D UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS NOT CONFINED TO CLERICAL OR ARITHMETICA L MISTAKES. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT DOES NOT COVER ANY MIST AKE WHICH MAY BE DISCOVERED BY A COMPLICATED PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION, ARGUMENT OR PROOF. 5.3 THE APEX COURT IN MASTER CONSTRUCTION CO. (P.) LTD. V . STATE OF ORISSA [1966] 17 STC 360 , HELD THAT AN ERROR WHICH IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD SHOULD BE ONE WH ICH IS NOT AN ERROR WHICH DEPENDS FOR ITS DISCOVERY ON ELABORATE ARGUME NTS ON QUESTIONS OF FACT OR LAW. 5.4 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BR. P. LTD.,176 ITR 535 HAS HELD AS UN DER: M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 13 IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENT ENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL OR WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL F ACT WHICH APPEARS ON THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE T RIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMENT. IF THE COURT, ON A FAIR READING OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOU NT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AN Y IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING ITS CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH, U NLESS, OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE- PERVERSE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN IT S JUDGMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT IT H AS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OR HAS CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, AS IF THAT WE RE A MAGIC FORMULA; IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT IT HAS, IN FACT, DONE SO, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5.6 THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISIONS IN T.C.(A) NO. 156 OF 2006 DATED 21.08.2007 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. WHE N THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DECIDED AN ISSUE BY APPLYI NG ITS MIND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE RECTI FIED UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NO NECE SSITY WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW IT S OWN ORDER. EVEN AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE COULD NOT FIND A SINGLE REASON IN THE WHOLE ORDER AS TO HOW THE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED AND FOR W HAT REASONS. THERE IS NO APPARENT ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THEREBY THE TRIBUNAL SAT AS AN APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY OVER ITS OWN ORDER. IT IS COMPLETELY IMPERMISSIBLE AND T HE TRIBUNAL HAS TRAVELED OUT OF ITS JURISDICTION TO ALLOW A MIS CELLANEOUS PETITION IN THE NAME OF REVIEWING ITS OWN ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION , THE TRIBUNAL REVIEWED ITS EARLIER ORDER AND ALLOWED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE REHE ARING OF THE APPEAL FOR A FRESH DISPOSAL AND DOING SO, WOULD OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER TO REC TIFY MISTAKES AND POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE APPLICATION OF SECTION M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 14 254(2) IS LIMITED AND NARROW. IT IS RESTRICTED TO R ECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. RECALLING THE OR DER OBVIOUSLY WOULD MEAN PASSING OF A FRESH ORDER. RECALLING OF THE ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SEC.254(2) OF THE ACT. ONLY GLARING AND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD ALONE CAN BE RECTIFIED AN D HENCE ANYTHING DEBATABLE CANNOT BE A SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION. 5.7 THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ON THE SCOPE OF RECTIFI CATION U/S 254(2), IN THE CASE OF RAS BIHARI BANSAL VS. CIT 293 ITR 365 HAS HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ENABLES T HE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM THE RECORD. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN OVERSIGHT O F A FACT CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE U NDER THIS SECTION. SIMILARLY, FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONS IDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION, IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT. THE MERE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT ALLOWED A DEDUCTION, EVEN IF THE CONCLUSION IS WRONG, WILL BE NO GROUND FOR MOVING AN APPLICATION UNDER S ECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN THE GARB OF AN APPLI CATION FOR RECTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO REOPEN AND RE-ARGUE THE WHOLE MATTER, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOP E OF THE SECTION. 5.8 IN CONCLUSION, CRUX OF THE PROVISIONS AND JUDGMENTS IS THA T THE SCOPE FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER IS VERY LIMITED AND DEPENDS UPON THE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD . T HE TRIBUNAL CAN ONLY RECTIFY ITS MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD A ND THE PROVISION OF RECTIFICATION DOES NOT PERMIT THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS EARLIER ORDER. THERE IS WIDE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RECTIF ICATION AND REVIEW. RECTIFICATION IMPLIES CORRECTION OF ERROR AND RE MOVAL OF DEFECT OR IMPERFECTION AND WHILE EXERCISING POWER RECTIF ICATION, THE COURT CAN NOT EXERCISE THE POWER OF REVIEW OR REVISI ON. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT REVIEW IS CREATURE OF STATUTE AND M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 15 IN ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION FOR REVIEW, EXER CISE OF POWER OF REVIEW UNDER GARB OF RECTIFICATION, MODIFICAT ION, CORRECTION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE POWER WHICH COULD BE EXERCISED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT 1961 IS CIRCUMSCRIBED AND RESTRICTED WITHIN THE A MBIT OF THE POWER VESTED BY THE SAID SECTION. SUCH A POWER IS NEI THER A POWER OF REVIEW NOR IS AKIN TO THE POWER OF REVISION BUT IS ONLY A POWER TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. RECTIFICATION IMPLIES THE CORRECTION OF AN ERROR OR A R EMOVAL OF DEFECTS OR IMPERFECTIONS. IT IMPLIES AN ERROR, MISTAKE O R DEFECT WHICH AFTER RECTIFICATION IS MADE RIGHT. THEREFORE ON THE AFORESAID ANALYZATION, THE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE MISTA KE APPARENT FROM RECORD CAN BE RECTIFIED BUT NOT OTHERWI SE. LET US TO PERUSE THE ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION AS TO WHETHER ANY MISTAKE IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD OR NOT . FROM THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE, IT CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THOROUGH LY CONSIDERED THE ISSUES RAISED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND HAS T AKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES ON RECORD BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH APPEARS ON RECORD. E VEN BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION, REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE ARGUMENTS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN ADDITION TO WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PREVENTED TO RAISE. THE ASSEEEE EXCEPT TO REITERATING THE ISSUES ALREADY RAISED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION, COULD NOT RAISE ANY NEW/ADDITIONAL ISSUE SPECIF ICALLY WHICH REMAINED UN-ADJUDICATED. FROM THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHERE THE COURT HA S PASSED THE ELABORATE ORDER WHILE DISPOSING OF THE CONTEN TIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND/OR ORAL SUBMISSIONS, THE ORDER CAN BE RECTIFIED. IN OUR VIEW THE DECISION M.A.NO.18/ASR/2018 (A.Y.2009-10) KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. VS. ITO 16 OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SE NTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OU T IN DETAIL BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OR WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL FA CT WHICH APPEARS ON RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMENT. IF ON A FAIR READING OF THE JUDGMENT OF T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, IT APPEARS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL REL EVANT MATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING ITS CONCLUSIONS, THEN THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORD INATE BENCH, IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE BENCH ARE PERVERSE. AS IT I S ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT ONLY GLARING AND MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD ALONE CAN BE RECTIFIED BUT NOT OTHERWISE PERMISSIBLE UNDER SEC.254(2) OF THE ACT. A MISTAKE MUST EXIST AND THE SAME MUST BE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, WHICH IS NOT APPARENT IN THIS CASE, HENCE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION TO DISMISS THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.04.2019. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23.04.2019 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) SH SH. KAMALJIT SINGH PROP. M/S DHANOA BROTHERS, BATHINDA. (2) THE ITO, WARD, 1(1), BATHINDA (3) THE CIT(A), BATHINDA (4) THE CIT, CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR T RUE COPY BY ORDER