Calendula Teledata Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata V. CIT, CIR-48, KOLKATA, Kolkata

MA 20/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4999 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT KUMAR KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: O P BAID F
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

M.A.20/KOL/2016 A/O ITA NO.1891/K/2013 M/S.CALENDUL A TELEDATA P.LTD. A.Y.2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, AM & SRI N.V.VA SUDEVAN, JM ] M.A.NO.20/KOL/2016 (A/O I.T.A NO.1891/KOL/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-0 9 M/S. CALENDULA TELEDATA PVT. LTD. -VS.- C.I.T.-KOLKATA-II, KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN : AADCC 0111C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI O.P.BAID, F CA FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI RAJAT KUMAR KU REEL, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 05.08.2016. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :19.102.2016. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM THIS IS A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION(M.A.) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) PRAYING FOR AN ORDER EITHER RECALLING ITS ORDER DATED 4.11.2015 AND HEAR THE APPEAL AFRESH OR RECTIFY ALL THE APPARENT ERRORS IN THE ORDER WHICH ARE POINTED OUT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF MAKING INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND DERIVING INCOME BY GIVING LOANS AND ADVA NCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2008-09 ON 31.1.2009 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS.3,300/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED AND ACCEPTED U/S.143(1) O F THE ACT ON 7.12.09. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER BEFORE TH E AO STATING THAT THE INTIMATION U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED AND ALS O ENCLOSED FULL SET OF BALANCE SHEET WITH THE SAID LETTER. THE AO ON RECEIPT OF THIS LE TTER EXAMINED THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT CERTAIN PRELIMINARY EXP ENSES OF RS.26,040/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION . THE AO THEREFORE ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT AND PASSED AN ORDER U/S.147/143( 3) OF THE ACT DATED 18.6.2010. THE ISSUED/SUBSCRIBED/PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAD DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR INCREASED BY RS.70,40,000/- CONSEQUENT TO ISSUE OF 7,16,000/- EQUITY SHARES OF RS.10 EACH AT A PREMIUM OF RS.190/- PER SHARE. THE ASSES SEE THUS RECEIVED A SUM OF M.A.20/KOL/2016 A/O ITA NO.1891/K/2013 M/S.CALENDUL A TELEDATA P.LTD. A.Y.2008-09 2 RS.13,60,40,000/- FROM FRESH SHAREHOLDERS. THE AO WHILE CONCLUDING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.148 OF THE ACT ISSUED NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT TO FRESH SHAREHOLDERS FOR VERIFICATION AND FURTHER OBSERVED IN THE ORDER OF A SSESSMENT THAT NO DISCREPANCY WAS OBSERVED FROM THEIR REPLIES. 3. THE CIT IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWERS U/S.263 OF TH E ACT, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE AC T, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHARES WERE SUBSCRIBED AT A PREMIUM ON THE BASIS OF MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING AND FAITH BETWEEN CLOSELY KNIT PERSONS AND THE AMENDMENT TO S EC.56(2) OF THE ACT HAD COME INTO EFFECT ONLY W.E.F. AY 2013-14 AND THAT PRIOR T O THAT THERE WAS NO YARDSTICK EITHER IN THE COMPANIES ACT OR IN THE ACT TO FIX OR REGULA TE SHARE PREMIUM. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO CONDUCTED PROPER ENQUIRY REGA RDING THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT COULD BE MADE WHEN IDENTITY OF TH E SHAREHOLDER WAS ESTABLISHED. 4. THE LD. CIT, ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECOR D, OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL WITH HUGE SHARE PREMIUM, WAS NOT PROPERLY E XAMINED BY THE AO INASMUCH AS NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT ALONE WER E ISSUED TO SOME OF THE SUBSCRIBERS TO THE SHARE CAPITAL ON A TEST CHECK BASIS. ONLY B ANK STATEMENT OF SOME OF THE SHAREHOLDERS WAS OBTAINED AND NO ENQUIRY WITH REGAR D TO THEIR SOURCE OF FUNDS AND FINANCIAL CAPACITY WAS EVER INVESTIGATED. HE FURTH ER NOTICED THAT REPLIES IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S 133(6) WERE RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF T HE AO, WHICH WERE JUST PLACED ON RECORD WITHOUT MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES. IN T HIS BACKDROP OF THE FACTS, IT WAS OPINED THAT THE INVESTORS WERE PAPER COMPANIES FLOA TED BY ENTRY OPERATORS. THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE DONE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION TO FIND OU T WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPANIES EXITED ONLY ON PAPER. NO SUCH EXERCISE WAS DONE AN D MERELY REPLIES WHICH ARE OFTEN SENT BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS BEEN ACCEPTED ON TH E FACE VALUE. WHATEVER ENQUIRIES WERE DONE WERE SUPERFICIALLY ENQUIRIES. 5. THE CIT ALSO TOOK NOTE OF A RACKET UNDER WHICH A LARGE NUMBER OF COMPANIES WERE FLOATED IN IDENTICAL MANNER APPARENTLY SHOWING TO H AVE INTRODUCED SHARE CAPITAL AT A HUGE PREMIUM BY ROTATING THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY. HE OBSERVED THAT THE AO OUGHT TO M.A.20/KOL/2016 A/O ITA NO.1891/K/2013 M/S.CALENDUL A TELEDATA P.LTD. A.Y.2008-09 3 HAVE CONDUCTED THOROUGH ENQUIRY INTO AT LEAST 2-3 L AYERS TO REACH THE SOURCE OR THE REAL INVESTOR. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ISSUE OF A SHAR E WITH A FACE VALUE ETHOROUGH EXAMINATION BY THE AO, WHICH HE FAILED TO CARRY OUT , THE LD. CIT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CAME TO HOLD THAT THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WAS RENDERED ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. HE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO FOR MAK ING A FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT, DETAILED AND COMPLETE ENQUI RIES INTO THE SUBSCRIPTION TO THE SHARE CAPITAL AND PREMIUM INTRODUCED IN THIS CASE A ND ALSO THE INVESTMENTS ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CERTAIN OTHER SUCH COMPANIE S. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SAID ORDER FILED THE ABOVE APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. 6. THE TRIBUNAL BY ITS ORDER DATED 4.11.2005 UPH ELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT. IT NEEDS TO BE POINTED OUT THA T SIMILAR ORDERS WERE PASSED BY VARIOUS CITS IN KOLKATA AND A BUNCH OF APPEALS WER E DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH ALL THESE APPEA LS AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ARE IDENTICAL. IN FACT MANY COUNSELS ADOPTED ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY LEAD COUNSELS IN THE GROUP OF CASES AND THIS FACT HAS BE EN MENTIONED IN PARAGRAPH 3 & 4 OF THE ORDER IN THIS APPEAL ALSO. THIS BACKGROUND HAS TO BE KEPT IN MIND WHILE DECIDING THE PRESENT M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IN PARAGRAPH- 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS LISTED OUT THE VARIOUS ISSUES THAT IT HAD RAISED IN THE VARIOUS GR OUNDS OF APPEAL. IN PARAGRAPH-5 OF THE M.A.IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT GIVE ANY FINDING AS TO THE LEGALITY, VALIDITY AND OR MAINTAINABILITY OF THE TR ANSFER OF THE I.T.FILE/RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ITS JURISDICTIONAL ITO, VIZ., ITO, WA RD 9 (3), KOL, TO THE ITO, WARD 6(1), KOL. THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT T HE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 18.6.2010 WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION U/S.26 3 OF THE ACT THAT WAS IMPUGNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPA TED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ITO, WARD 6(1), KOL., FILED LIST OF FRES H SHAREHOLDERS AND NEVER QUESTIONED HIS JURISDICTION. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE OBJEC TION RAISED IN THE M.A. IS NOTHING BUT A FRIVOLOUS OBJECTION. IN FACT THIS ASPECT IS DEAL T WITH IN PARAGRAPH-4 E OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. M.A.20/KOL/2016 A/O ITA NO.1891/K/2013 M/S.CALENDUL A TELEDATA P.LTD. A.Y.2008-09 4 8. IN PARAGRAPH-6 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDINGS AS TO THE LEGALITY, VALI DITY AND OR MAINTAINABILITY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.3.2013 PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WRITTEN S UBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THIS ALLEGATION IN THE M.A. I S UNSUSTAINABLE. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LEAD CASE HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED ALL ISSUES AND VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE SCOPE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT. THE GIST OF THE CO NCLUSION IN THE LEAD ORDER HAS BEEN SET OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS APPEAL ALSO. TO QUOTE AN EXAMPLE, THE ASSESSEE IN PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE M.A. SAYS THAT THE C IT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS NOT RECORDED SATISFACTION THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. IN PAGE-2 LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT U/S.263 OF THE ACT, THERE IS CLEARLY A R ECORDING OF THE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES T OF THE REVENUE FOR THE REASON THAT THE AO DID NOT MAKE THE REQUISITE ENQUIRIES WHICH H E OUGHT TO HAVE MADE. THE OTHER ALLEGATIONS IN PARA-13 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS T O SAY THE LEAST ARE NOTHING BUT ALLEGATIONS WHICH ARE UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW BESIDES BEING FRIVOLOUS. FOR EXAMPLE IN PARA-21 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THERE IS REFEREN CE TO CERTAIN ERRORS IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT. IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE CIT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER RAISED ANY SUCH OBJECTION. THE ASSESSEE KNEW THE C HARGE AGAINST HIM AND HAD PUT FORTH ITS VIEW BEFORE CIT BEFORE THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED. THE PRESENT M.A. IS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO RAISE ISSUES WHICH ARE NOT GERMANE TO THE MAIN ISSUE WHICH ALREADY STOOD DECIDED BY THE T RIBUNAL IN THE LEAD CASE. WE MUST AT THIS STAGE ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RUNNING INTO 91 PAGES. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO REFERENCE WHAT SOEVER WAS MADE TO THESE SUBMISSIONS. IT WAS AGREED BY THE PARTIES AT THE T IME OF HEARING THAT THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SUBHLAKSHMI V ANIJYA (SUPRA) AND THOSE ARGUMENTS WILL APPLY TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO. BUT CONTRAR Y TO WHAT TRANSPIRED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, ALLEGATIONS ARE MADE IN THE M.A., WHICH IN OUR VIEW ARE NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO CAUSE ANNOYANCE. SUCH PRACTICE O F FILING M.A. AFTER ADVERSE VERDICT IS STRONGLY DEPRECATED. M.A.20/KOL/2016 A/O ITA NO.1891/K/2013 M/S.CALENDUL A TELEDATA P.LTD. A.Y.2008-09 5 9. THE ALLEGATION IN PARA-7 OF THE M.A. ARE AGAIN UNSUSTAINABLE. THERE IS NO CONFUSION THAT THE ORDER THAT WAS REVISED WAS THE O RDER DATED 18.6.2010 PASSED U/S.143(3)/147 OF THE ACT. THE ORDER OF REVISION P ASSED ON 28.3.2013 WITH REFERENCE TO THAT ORDER IS WELL WITHIN TIME AS LAID DOWN IN S EC.263(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO CONFUSE ISSUES BY COMPUTING PERIOD OF LIM ITATION FROM THE ORDER U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. NEITHER THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESS EE NOR THE ALLEGATIONS IN PARA-7 OF THE M.A. ARE WORTH ANY CONSIDERATION WHATSOEVER. I N ANY EVENT THIS WAS NEVER HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LEARNED AR WHEN THE APPEAL WAS H EARD. IN PARAGRAPH-4 D OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN DEALT WI TH AND THE CONTENTION IN THE M.A. TO THE CONTRARY IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 10. THE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICE IN PARAGRAPH-8 OF THE ORDER OF THE M.A. ARE AGAIN UNSUSTAINABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAR TICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION S DATED 22.3.2013 BEFORE THE CIT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MISTAKES POINTED OUT IN PARA-8 OF THE M.A. ARE WITHOUT ANY MERIT. ON THE SERVICE OF NOTICE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LEAD ORDER IN PARAGRAPH-4 C HAS ALREADY GIVEN ITS CONCLUSIONS AND IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE CONCLUSIONS, THE ALLEGATIONS IN PARA-8 OF THE MA AR E DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 11. THE ALLEGATIONS IN PARAGRAPH-9 OF THE MA IS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER SERVED WITH SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT DATED 18. 3.2013 AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 28.3.2013 PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE TR IBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THE SAID ALLEGATIONS IN ITS ORDER. IN THIS REGARD THE TRIBUNAL HAS IN THE LEAD ORDER IN PARAGRAPH-4 C HELD THAT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAS TO BE AFFORDED TO ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND THAT TH IS REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN MET. AS WE HAVE ALREADY SAID THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW DISOWNED THA T THEY SENT ANY REPLY DATED 21.3.2013 BEFORE CIT IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT. THIS ALLEGATION IS AGAIN MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IN ANY EVENT IN PARAGRAPH- 4 G OF THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT ANY ACT DONE TO DEFRAUD THE REVENUE BY FI LING RETURNS AT DIFFERENT ADDRESSES AND BY CHANGING NAME OF THE COMPANY ETC., CANNOT RE NDER THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT A NULLITY. THE ALLEGATION IN PARA-10 OF THE MA THA T THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING WITH REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ELDER M.A.20/KOL/2016 A/O ITA NO.1891/K/2013 M/S.CALENDUL A TELEDATA P.LTD. A.Y.2008-09 6 IT SOLUTIONS PVT.LTD. IS AGAIN NOT SUSTAINABLE. DE TAILED ORDER FOLLOWING DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS BEEN RE FERRED TO IN THE LEAD ORDER. 12. THE ALLEGATION IN PARA-11 OF THE MA THAT THE A SSESSEE CANNOT BE EQUATED TO A COMPANY WHICH WAS ADOPTING A MODUS OPERANDI OF CREA TING BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL IS AGAIN A MATTER WHICH HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER THAT IS LIKELY TO BE PASSED PURSUANT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT U/ S.263 OF THE ACT. NEITHER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT OR THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL SUCH CONCLUSIONS ARE DRAWN. 13. THE ALLEGATION IN PARA-12 OF THE MA THAT THE C IT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER CANNOT DICTATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE AO SHOULD CONDUCT A SSESSMENT IS AGAIN NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE POWERS U/S.263 OF THE ACT HAVE BE EN EXERCISED IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO DID NOT CONDUCT PROPER ENQUI RY WITH REGARD TO BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE CIT HAS INHERENT POWERS TO DIRECT THE AO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE AO SHOULD CONDUCT ENQUIRY IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. THIS HAS BEE N ELABORATELY DEALT WITH IN THE LEAD ORDER. 14. THE ALLEGATION REGARDING THE REFERENCE TO WRON G ITPA NUMBER IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.263 OF THE ACT IS AGAIN AN ISSUE WHICH W ILL NOT RENDER THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT NULLITY. THIS HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN PARAG RAPH 4 C OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 15. THE ALLEGATION IN PARAGRAPH 14, 15 AND 16 OF T HE MA IS NOTHING BUT A REPETITION OF ALLEGATIONS WHICH ARE ALREADY MADE IN PARAGRAPH 8 O F THE MA WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN MET IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. 16. THE ALLEGATION IN PARAGRAPH 17 OF THE MA WHET HER ISSUES OTHER THAN ONE RAISED BY THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE ACT CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN VERY ELABORATELY DISCUS SED IN PARAGRAPH-4 D OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. M.A.20/KOL/2016 A/O ITA NO.1891/K/2013 M/S.CALENDUL A TELEDATA P.LTD. A.Y.2008-09 7 17. THE ALLEGATIONS IN PARAGRAPH 19 & 20 OF THE MA IS AGAIN UNSUSTAINABLE. THE LEAD ORDER DEALS WITH ALL ALLEGATIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE A ND THE ASSESSEE BY FILING THIS MA WANTS TO REARGUE THE MATTER. 18. THE ALLEGATION IN PARAGRAPH 20 OF THE MA IS NO THING BUT A REPETITION OF THE ALLEGATION IN PARAGRAPH-11 OF THE MA WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY MET IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPH OF THIS ORDER. 19. THE ALLEGATIONS IN PARAGRAPH 21 OF THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IS AGAIN OF SIMILAR NATURE AS THAT CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 9 AD 10 OF TH E MA. THESE ALLEGATIONS HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH AND HELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EARL IER PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. THE ALLEGATIONS IN PARAGRAPH 22 OF THE MA ARE AGAIN MAD E WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT VAGUE AS ALLEGED. THE PURPORT OF THE ORDER CAN BE APPRECIATED IF READ TOGETHER WITH THE LEAD ORDER. IN FACT THIS WA S MADE CLEAR TO AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 20. WE MAY ADD THAT THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION PRO CEEDINGS U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT ARE VERY LIMITED. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER S. 2 54(2) IS CONFINED TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THAT THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE INHERENT POWER OF RECTIFICATION OR REVIEW OR REVISION. UNLESS THERE I S MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE SENSE OF PATENT, OBVIOUS, CLEAR ERROR OR MISTAK E, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT RECALL ITS PREVIOUS ORDER. IF THE ERROR OR MISTAKE IS ONE WHIC H COULD BE ESTABLISHED ONLY BY LONG- DRAWN ARGUMENTS OR BY WAY OF PROCESS OF INVESTIGATI ON AND RESEARCH, IT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. UNLESS THERE IS M ANIFEST ERRORS WHICH ARE OBVIOUS, CLEAR AND SELF-EVIDENT, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT RECALL ITS PREVIOUS ORDER IN AN ATTEMPT TO REWRITE THE SAME. FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSID ER 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 AS LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO. 2 03 ITR 497 (BOM). THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF RECTIFICATION LO OK INTO SOME OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REDECIDE THE MATTER AND IT HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. THA T THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO RECTIFY A DECISION ON DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW. WHERE AS THE COURTS HAVING GENERAL M.A.20/KOL/2016 A/O ITA NO.1891/K/2013 M/S.CALENDUL A TELEDATA P.LTD. A.Y.2008-09 8 JURISDICTION LIKE CIVIL COURTS HAVE INHERENT POWER, THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN DECISION EXCEPT WHAT IS AUT HORISED UNDER S. 254(2). 21. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, THE MA IS DISMISS ED. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE MA IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19.10 .2016. SD/- SD/- [P.M.JAGTAP] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 19.10.2016. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.M/S. CALENDULA TELEDATA PVT. LTD., 31, ALEXANDER COURT, 1 ST FLOOR, 60/1, CHOWRINGHEE ROAD, KOLKATA-700020. 2. C.I.T.-II, KOLKATA. 3. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER AS STT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES