Bhind District C-operative Bank Ltd., Bhind V. A.C.I.T., Range-2, Gwalior

MA 21/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1541 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ATHESHAM ANSARI
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER M.A. NO. 21/AGRA/2013 (IN ITA NO. 571/AGRA/2012) ASST. YEAR : 2009-10 BHIND DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., VS. A.C.I.T. , RANGE-2, SADAR BAZAR, BHIND. GWALIOR. (PAN: AAAAB 1172 B)) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) RESPONDENT BY` : SHRI ATHESHAM ANSARI, JR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.02.2014 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FLED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.03.2013, WHEREBY THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN MAIN APPEAL NO. 571/AGRA/2012 IN NOT ALLOWING PENAL INTEREST OF RS.1.94 CRORES, WHICH IS NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY T HE BANK. THE ASSESSEE IS A BANKING INSTITUTION AND ENGAGED IN PROVIDING FINANC IAL SERVICES TO ITS CUSTOMERS. IN THIS CASE, ON EXAMINATION OF COMPUTATION OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, IT REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL M.A. NO. 21/AGRA/2013 2 DEBT AMOUNTING TO RS.8,15,53,000/-, PENAL INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.1.94 CRORE AND PROVISION FOR SUNDRY DEBTORS AMOUNTING TO RS.8,07,0 00/-. SUCH PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON ANTICIPATION BASIS AND THE LIABILITY / LOSS BEING NOT ACTUALLY ARISEN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. PROVISIONS FOR DOUBTFUL DEBT, PENAL INTEREST AND SUNDRY DEBTORS WERE REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED B ECAUSE UNDER THE IT ACT, THE PROVISION MADE IN ACCOUNT FOR AN ACCRUED OR KNOWN L IABILITY IS AN ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION AND NO OTHER PROVISIONS QUALIFY FOR DEDUC TION. SINCE IN THIS CASE, NO SUCH LIABILITY HAS ACCRUED, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF ASSE SSEE WAS DISALLOWED AND ALL AMOUNTS WERE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. A LL THE THREE ADDITIONS WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, AS FAR A S ADMISSIBILITY OF PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND SUNDRY DEBTORS ARE CONCERNED, TH E ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED WORKING OF THE AMOUNT OF PROVISIONS ADMISSIBLE U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE IT ACT, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDE R AND THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED PART DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ABOVE PRO VISIONS AND REST OF THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED. 2.1. IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR PENAL INTEREST OF RS.1.94 CRORE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF GUIDELINES ISSUED BY RBI IN RESPE CT OF ACCOUNTING OF ACCRUED INTEREST ON NPA, WHICH IS AS UNDER : M.A. NO. 21/AGRA/2013 3 BANK SHOULD NOT DEBIT TO THE BORROWERS ACCOUNT INT EREST ACCRUED ON NPA, BUT SHOW THEM SEPARATELY UNDER INT EREST RECEIVABLE ACCOUNT AND A CORRESPONDING AMOUNT UNDE R OVERDUE INTEREST RESERVE ACCOUNT ON THE ASSETS AND LIABILI TIES SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET RESPECTIVELY. (THE AMOUNT HELD IN THE OVERDUE INTEREST RESERVE ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, CANNOT BE REGARDED AS RE SERVE OR AS PART OF THE OWNED FUNDS OF THE BANK AS IT IS NOT CR EATED OUT OF THE INCOME ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE BANK. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING FACTS OF THE CASE REJ ECTED CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 6. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT IN VIEW OF THE GU IDELINES THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWABLE. I HAVE SEEN TH E COPY OF THE P & L ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE SUM OF RS.1,94,00,000/- HAS BEEN SHOWN AS RESERVE (KAALA TEET BYAZ KOSH) AND NOT AS PROVISION. FURTHER THIS INTEREST HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN OF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY APPELLANT. ANY AMOUNT WHIC H IS NOT WRITTEN OF AS BAD DEBT AND NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS DEDUCTION. THEREFO RE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF RS.1,94,00,000/- IS DISALLOWABLE. ACCO RDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED ON THIS ISSUE. 4. THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REFERRED TO PB-36, WHICH IS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ENDING YEAR 31.03.2009 TO SHOW THAT INTEREST OVERDU E WAS NOT RECEIVED WHICH IS TAKEN AS KAALATEET BYAZ KOSH. HE HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THIS FIGURE WAS TAKEN TO BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST RECEIVABLE( PB-31). HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-11, WHICH IS AUDIT REPORT, IN WHICH METHOD OF AC COUNTING EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MERCANTILE SYSTEM EXCEPT IN THE CASE O F INTEREST ON NPA ADVANCES ON CASH BASIS AS PER RBI GUIDELINES. HE HAS REFERRED T O PB-46 TO SHOW THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, INTEREST OF 1. 94 CRORE WAS RECEIVED LESSER, WHICH IS TAKEN INTO INTEREST RECEIVABLE ACCOUNT AND WAS CARRIED FORWARD TO THE NEXT YEAR. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M.A. NO. 21/AGRA/2013 4 UCO BANK VS. CIT, 237 ITR 889, IN WHICH THE ASSESSE E FOLLOWED MIXED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND FOR INTEREST ON DOUBTFUL LOANS HAS N O REAL INCOME IN THE YEAR WHICH ACCRUED TO WAS CONSIDERED ONLY WHEN IT WAS REALIZED . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN FOR 2-3 QUARTERS, NO INTEREST WAS RECEIVED, IT WAS CONSIDER ED AS PROVISION FOR PENAL INTEREST. THE SAME ACCRUED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN FOR TAXATION PURPOSES. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF T.N. POWER FINANCE AND INFRAST RUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. VS. JCIT, 280 ITR 491 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD HELD, THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE FOR NON-PERFORMING ASSETS, THAT DIRECTION COULD NOT OVERRIDE THE MANDATORY PROVISIO NS OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT CONTAINED IN SECTION 36(1 (VIIA) WHICH STIP ULATE A DEDUCTION NOT EXCEEDING 5 PER CENT, OF THE TOTAL INCOME ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WHICH ARE PRED OMINATELY REVENUE IN NATURE OR TRADE RELATED AND NOT FOR PROV ISION FOR NON- PERFORMING ASSETS WHICH ARE OF PREDOMINATELY CAPITA L NATURE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION, IN VIEW OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VII) WHICH SAYS THAT THE PROVISION FO R BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS MADE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A N ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. 5. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE F INDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 4 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PROVISION FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS, PENAL INTEREST AND SUNDRY DEBTORS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. SUCH PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE MERELY ON ANTICIPATION BASIS AND THE LIABILITY/ LOS S BEING NOT ACTUALLY ARISING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. UNDER THE IT A CT, THE PROVISION COULD BE MADE IN ACCOUNTS FOR AN ACCRUED OR KNOWN LIABILITY WHICH MAY QUALIFY FOR DEDUCTION AND THERE IS NO OTHER PROVISION TO QUALIF Y FOR DEDUCTION. THUS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOUND THAT NO SUCH LIABILITY HA S ACCRUED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION, THEREFORE, DEDUCTION WAS LIABLE TO BE DISALLOWED. T HE ASSESSEE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE WITH REGARD TO PROVISIONS FOR DOUBTFUL DEBTS AND SUNDRY DEBTORS, RESTRICTED HIS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE IT ACT, WHICH M.A. NO. 21/AGRA/2013 5 WAS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AC CORDING TO THE ABOVE PROVISION. HOWEVER, FOR PROVISION FOR PENAL INTEREST IN A SUM OF RS.1.94 CRORES, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION EITHER U/S. 36 (1)(VII) OR U/S. 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SUCH CLAIM IS ALL OWABLE AS PER GUIDELINES ISSUED BY RBI AS NOTED ABOVE. NPA ACCOUNTS ARE ACCOUNTS OF DEFAULTERS IF THEY DO NOT PAY OR NO CHANCE TO PAY. ENTRIES MADE BY ASSESSEE ON A CCRUAL OF PENAL INTEREST APPEARS TO BE MADE ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTI NG BUT LATER ON CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN P & L ACCOUNT ON CASH BASIS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. ONCE INCOME ACCRUED, IT HAS TO BE TAXED. BOTH METHOD CAN NOT OPERATE TOGETHER. THE ABOVE RBI GUIDELINES HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR ADMINISTR ATIVE PURPOSE FOR REGULATING THE BANKING BUSINESS TO MONITOR NPA A/C. IT HAS NOT HING TO DO WITH THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED EITHER U/S. 36(1)(VII) OR SEC. 36(1)(VIIA) OF THE IT ACT. THE LD. DR ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF T.N. POWER FINANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (SU PRA) IN WHICH ALSO IT WAS HELD THAT RESERVE BANK DIRECTIVES CANNOT OVERRIDE THE ST ATUTORY PROVISIONS. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. JCIT, 320 ITR 577 HELD (HEAD NOTES) PROVISION FOR NON-PERFORMING ASSETS AND DEBITED T O PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT MADE UNDER RESERVE BANK PRUDENTIAL N ORMS CAN BE TREATED AS INCOME EXPENSE NOT DEDUCTIBLE UNDER S ECTION 36(1)(VII) OR (VIIA) RESERVE BANK DISCLOSURE NORMS HAVE NOTH ING TO DO WITH COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME UNDER INCOME-TAX ACT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT WHAT IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE UND ER SPECIFIC PROVISION IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE AS GENERAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE ASS ESSEE IS A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA) MAY AP PLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE TO SOME EXTENT FOR MAKING PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTF UL DEBTS. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LTD. VS. CIT, 343 ITR 270 HELD THAT SCHEDULED COMMERCIAL BANKS WOULD CONTINUE TO GET T HE FULL BENEFIT OF WRITE OFF OF IRRECOVERABLE DEBTS U/S. 36(1)(VII) IN ADDITION TO THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION FOR THE PROVISION MADE FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS U/S. 36(1 )(VIIA). THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT FOLLOWED THE SAME DECISION IN THE CASE OF DCI T VS. KARNATAKA BANKS LTD., 349 ITR 705. THE LD. CIT(A) SPECIFICALLY FOUND IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PENAL INTEREST HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. ANY AMOUNT, WHICH IS NOT WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBT AND NO T COVERED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 36(1)(VIIA), IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AS DEDUCTION . THUS, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS TO UNDER WHIC H OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, SUCH A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS MADE ON PROVISION FOR PENA L INTEREST. SINCE THE CONDITIONS OF ABOVE PROVISIONS HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND NO SUCH CLAIM IS ALSO MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW UND ER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS AND NOTHING IS CLARIFIED UNDER WHICH PROVISION THE ASSE SSEE MADE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. M.A. NO. 21/AGRA/2013 6 THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION WAS RIGHTLY NOT ENTERTAINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE IN THE AUDIT REPOR T CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EMPLOYING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ON MERCANTILE SY STEM EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF INTEREST ON NPA ADVANCE ON CASH BASIS AS PER RBI NO RMS. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK VS . CIT (SUPRA), IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED MIXED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AS PER THE CIRCULAR, THEREFORE, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED BECAUSE THE INTEREST ON LOAN, WHOSE RECOVERY WAS DOUBTFUL AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RECOVERED BY THE AS SESSEE BANK FOR LAST THREE YEARS, BUT HAS BEEN KEPT IN SUSPENSE ACCOUNT WAS HE LD NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E UNDER CONSIDERATION PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND THERE IS AMENDMENT I N SECTION 145 OF THE IT ACT W.E.F. 01.04.1997 AS SUBSTITUTED BY FINANCE ACT, 19 95 AND IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSION OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES SHALL SUBJECT TO PROVIS IONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EITHER CASH OR MERCANTI LE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT APPEARS FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE EARLIER SHOWED THE PENAL INTEREST AS INCOME ARISING ON ACCRUAL BASIS, BUT LATER ON THE ASSESSEE MADE PROVI SION FOR DOUBTFUL PENAL INTEREST IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFIC ATION. THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEDUCTION IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY CONSIDERING THE SAME AS PROVISION FOR PENAL INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS TO UNDER WHICH PROVISIONS OF LAW, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF PROVISION FOR PENAL INTEREST. RBI GUID ELINES, THUS, ISSUED WERE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT, THERE FORE, CANNOT BE APPLIED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFE RE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE. 6. THE ASSESSEE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS ST ATED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE GUIDELINES OF RBI BINDING ON THE BANK AND THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGY LTD. (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AND THAT THE CIRCULAR IS BINDING. IT IS, THEREFORE, STATED T HAT THE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD MAY BE RECTIFIED AND ORDER MAY BE AMENDED. M.A. NO. 21/AGRA/2013 7 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SHRI S.K. L ULLA, C.A. FORWARDED A LETTER STATING THAT THE M.A. MAY BE DECIDED ON MERITS IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FOLLOWING DECISION : (I). CT VS. INDUSTRIAL FINANCE CORPORATION OF IND IA LTD., 248 CTR 69 (II). ACIT VS. OSMANABAD JANTA SAH. BANK LTD., 152 TTJ (UO) 01. (III). CIT VS. PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. 3 4 TAXMAN 128. (IV). JAIPUR CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK VS. DEPTT. OF INCOME-TAX ITA NO. 817/JP/2011. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVI EW THEIR ORDERS ALREADY PASSED ON MERITS AND NO MISTAKES APPARENT ON RECORD HAVE B EEN POINTED OUT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. THEREFORE, THE MISCELLAN EOUS APPLICATION MAY BE DISMISSED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SECTION 254(2) PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT. IT IS WE LL SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW THEIR OWN ORDERS PASSED ON M ERITS. WE RELY UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANAMIKA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., 251 ITR 585, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT CHANGE ITS VIEW ALREADY TAKEN IN THE MATTER. WE ARE FURTHER FO RTIFIED IN OUR VIEW BY THE M.A. NO. 21/AGRA/2013 8 DECISION OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. IDEAL ENGINEERS, 251 ITR 743, THE DECISION OF HONBLE M.P . HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AGARWAL WAREHOUSING, 257 ITR 235 (MP) AND OF HONBL E MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ADYAR GATE HOTEL LTD., 294 ITR 155 IN WHICH HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICA TION SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE DEBATABLE ISSUE. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD. 284 ITR 42 HELD THAT THE MISTAKE MUST BE SO OBVIOUS THAT IT CAN BE EASILY CORRECTED TO WIT ANY ARITHMETICAL MISTAKE, W RONG QUOTATION OF SECTION ETC. AND NOT ON DEBATABLE ISSUES. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW THEIR OWN ORDERS ALREADY PASSED ON MERITS. IN THIS CASE WHATE VER POINTS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN MA HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND THE DECISION OF THE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK, 237 ITR 889, WHICH IS ALSO REFERRED IN MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. WHATEVER SUBMISSIONS WERE RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HA VE BEEN DEALT WITH AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. WHATEVER DECISIONS ARE NOW CITED IN T HE LETTER OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ABOVE, WERE NOT CITED AT THE TIME OF H EARING OF APPEAL. THERE COULD NOT BE ANY RECONSIDERATION OF FACTS WHILE EXERCISING JU RISDICTION U/S. 254(2) OF THE IT ACT. SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DECI DED ON MERITS, CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF SU BMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, M.A. NO. 21/AGRA/2013 9 THEREFORE, REVIEW OF THE JUDGMENT IS NOT PERMISSIBL E. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND IS ACCORDINGLY DIS MISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY