IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIRTUAL CONFERENCE) BEFORE SH RI SAT B EER S INGH GO DA RA , JU DI CIA L MEMBE R AND SHR I L AXMI PR AS A D SAHU , AC COUNT ANT MEMBE R M.A.No. 02/Hyd/2022 (in ITA No. 420/Hyd/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s MQ Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. PAN – AACCM3501H Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward – 16(4), Hyderabad. (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri A.V. Raghuram Revenue by: Shri Rohit Mujumdar Date of hearing: 11/03/2022 Date of pronouncement: 14/03/2022 O R D E R PER L. P. SAHU, A.M.: This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee u/s 254(2) of the Income Tax Act seeking rectification/modification of the order of the Tribunal dated 23/12/2021 in ITA No. 420/Hyd/2018. 2. In the MA, the assessee stated as under: “1. The Hon'ble Tribunal vide order dated 23.12.2021 was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the Assessee in M.A. No. 02/Hyd/2022 M/s MQ Engineering & Consultant (P) Ltd., Hy d . :- 2 -: ITA.No.420/Hyd/2018 for Asst. year 2012-13. The Counsel appearing for the Appellant on 22.12.2021 sought for adjournment orally on the ground that fresh confirmation letters from creditors are to be filed in respect of the issue involved in the appeal. The Hon'ble Tribunal, while rejecting request for adjournment has observed that the matter would be remitted back to the file of learned AO to enable the Appellant to produce the creditors before the Id. AO at its costs and risk and prove the credits to the satisfaction of the Id. AD effectively in two hearings. This was also recorded in the log book of Hon'ble JM. However, the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order has upheld the findings of the authorities below without even looking into the submissions and evidence filed on record. 2. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Tribunal made inadvertent error in not remitting the matter back to the file of the Id. AD as observed by the Hon'ble Tribunal during the course of hearing. It is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly recall its order and pass such other order as the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.” 3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order passed by the ITAT and submitted that the order was passed in detail on merits of the case. He, therefore, submitted that there is no mistake apparent in the order and the Tribunal cannot review its own order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We observe that the Tribunal after considering the grounds raised in appeal, submissions made from both the sides and considering the M.A. No. 02/Hyd/2022 M/s MQ Engineering & Consultant (P) Ltd., Hy d . :- 3 -: documents available on record, passed the order. The Tribunal cannot review its own order in the garb of power vested u/s 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, recalling of the order in this case as sought by the Authorized Representative will tantamount to review of the order which is not permitted under the law. This power is not vested with the Tribunal. For this proposition, we rely on the decision of the ITAT, Mumbai Benches in the case of Gateway Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, [2021] 128 Taxmann.com 314 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Reliance Telecom Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos. 7110 & 7111 of 2021 vide order dated 3 rd December, 2021. Accordingly, we dismiss the MA filed by the assessee. 5. In the result, MA filed by the assessee is dismissed in above terms. Pronounced in the open court on 14 th March, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. GODARA) (L. P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 14 th March, 2022. kv M.A. No. 02/Hyd/2022 M/s MQ Engineering & Consultant (P) Ltd., Hy d . :- 4 -: copy to : 1 M/s MQ Engineering & Consultant (P) Ltd., 8-2-672, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. 2 ITO, Ward – 16(4), Hyderabad. 3 CIT(A) - 4, Hyderabad 4 Pr. CIT –4 , Hyderabad. 5 ITAT, DR, Hyderabad 6 Guard File.