Compucom Software Limited, JAIPUR V. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax,Jaipur-2, JAIPUR

MA 22/JPR/2022

AI Insights

M/s. Compucom Software Ltd. filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of an earlier ITAT order dated 31-08-2022. The application argued that there were mistakes apparent from the records in the ITAT's earlier decision, particularly concerning the violation of natural justice and the non-consideration of merits related to bad debts and ESI/PF matters. The Tribunal, however, found that the issues raised were already addressed in the earlier order and that the application did not substantiate the claims of apparent mistakes. The Tribunal also noted that the principles of natural justice were upheld as the assessee was given a chance to be heard on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132396 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Ashutosh Bhargava vs PCIT, Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT, Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT, L. G. Ramamurthi v. CIT, Reliance Communications Ltd. v. DDIT, Gopal Ram Pema Ram v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, CIT v. Laxmi Electronic Corpn. Ltd., Hansa Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar representing ITAT, Silicon Graphics Systems (I) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 8(1), New Delhi
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Bad and doubtful debts; Set aside; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 154; 43B; 254(2); 22

Judgement Text

vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqjU;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘A’ JAIPUR JhlaanhixkslkbZ]U;kf;dlnL; ,oaJhjkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Misc. Application No. 22/JP/2022 (Arising out of vk;djvihy la-@ITA No.153/JP/2022) fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2017-18 M/s. Compucom Software Ltd. IT-14-15, EPIP Sitapura Jaipur cuke Vs. The PCIT-2 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACG 5818 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 11/01/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 16/03/2023 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This is a Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee seeking rectification u/s 254(2) of the Act in the order passed in ITA No. 153/JP/2022 dated 31-08-2022. In the Miscellaneous Application, the assessee has prayed that 2 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR certain errors have crept in the said order of ITAT which are mistakes apparent from records for which the assessee prays to recall its order dated 31-08-2022 for consideration and to pass order after considering the facts and also the decision of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench. For the sake of convenience and brevity of the case, the Misc. Application raised by the assessee is reproduced as under:- ‘’3. That, with due respect, certain errors have crept in the said order of Hon’ble ITAT which are mistakes apparent from the records as detailed in the paragraphs below. 4. That the Hon’ble ITAT in its order from pages 26 to 29 observed that ld. PCIT was having 834 days for exercising revisionary powers, however, the case of the assessee company was instituted after lapse of 814 days i.e. when only 19 days were left for completing revisionary proceedings. Thereafter, Hon’ble ITAT also observed that in the notice only 9 days’ time was given and the adjournment application of the assessee company was not dealt with while passing the order. Accordingly, Hon’ble ITAT held that principles of natural justice were violated and it was decided as under: “...13... we are of the considered view that the order passed by the Pr. CIT violates the principles of natural justice and in terms of request made by the ld. DR we set-aside the order of PCIT with a direction to pass the order after giving sufficient opportunity of being heard...” [Emphasis Supplied] 5. That similar issue of lack of natural justice, under similar factual circumstances, was decided by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench at Jaipur, in the case of Ashutosh Bhargava vs PCIT – ITA No. 20/JP/2021 (Copy of order is enclosed herewith), wherein 263 revisionary proceedings were quashed. It was held as under: “...12..As per facts of the present case, the assessee was not afforded opportunity much less sufficient opportunity to give the reply to the show case notice. Therefore it is clear that ld. PCIT in a hurriedly manner without affording opportunity of hearing, to the assessee, had passed impugned order by violating principles of audi alteram partem.......Accordingly, revision proceedings framed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT stands quashed” 3 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR 6. The comparative factual position of the case of the assessee company and decision of Ashutosh Bhargava (supra) is as under: Particulars Assessee Company Ashutosh Bhargava Date of Order 31.08.2022 06.01.2022 Date of issue of first notice u/s 263 12.03.2022 (ITAT Order Page 9) 18.03.2021 (Order Page 36) Date of hearing for notice u/s 263 21.03.2022 (ITAT Order Page 9) 24.03.2021 (Order Page 36) Date of filing Adjournment 21.03.2022 (ITAT Order Page 9) 24.03.2021 (Order Page 36) Whether application for Adjournment was accepted No (ITAT Order Page 9) No (Order Page 36) Date of order passed u/s 263 27.03.2022 (ITAT Order Page 9) 31.03.2021 (Order Page 36-37) Total days available for 263 834 (ITAT Order Page 26) 856 Days left when proceedings were initiated 19 (ITAT Order Page 26) 13 Decision Principles of Natural Justice were violated and matter set aside to PCIT (ITAT Order Page 29) Principles of Natural Justice were violated and order of PCIT was quashed (Order Page 38) 7. That, in view of above, the stand of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of the assessee company is contrary to the stand to the decision of Coordinate Bench. 8. That in both the Benches the Hon’ble Judicial Member was common. 9. That the order of the assessee company was pronounced on 31.08.2022 and the decision of Ashutosh Bhargava (supra) was pronounced on 06.01.2022 i.e. on a prior date. 4 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR 10. That not following the decision of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench without assigning any reason is a mistake apparent on record. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 10.1 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT (295 ITR 466) held as under: "Rule of precedent' is an important aspect of legal certainty in rule of law. That principle is not obliterated by section 254(2). When prejudice results from an order attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission, then it is the duty of the Tribunal to set it right. Atonement to the wronged party by the Court or Tribunal for the wrong committed by it has nothing to do with the concept of inherent power to review. In the instant case, the Tribunal was justified in exercising its powers undersection 254(2) when it was pointed out to the Tribunal that the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench was placed before the Tribunal when the original order came to be passed but it had committed a mistake in not considering the material, which was already on record. The Tribunal had acknowledged its mistake; it had accordingly rectified its order. If prejudice had resulted to the party, which prejudice is attributable to the Tribunal's mistake, error or omission and which error is a manifest error then the Tribunal would be justified in rectifying its mistake. The same thing had been done in the instant case.[Para 13] " 10.2 Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. GoodlasNerolac Paints Ltd (188 ITR 1) held as under: "6. Before parting with this question, we consider it desirable to mention that the Tribunal is a final Judge of facts. The High Court in reference does not interfere with the findings effect unless such a finding is perverse or is such that no reasonable person can come to such a finding. This will be so even when the High Court feels that it would have come to a different conclusion, if it was sitting in appeal. In that sense, when the High Court declines to interfere with finding of fact given by the Tribunal in an earlier year, it may not mean that the High Court had approved of such findings. This, however, does not mean that a subsequent Bench of the Tribunal should come to a conclusion totally contradictory to the conclusion reached by the earlier Bench of the Tribunal in the same case for an earlier year on a similar set of facts. Such a thing may not be in the larger public interest as it is likely to shake the confidence of the public in the 5 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR system. It is, therefore, desirable that in case a subsequent Bench of the Tribunal is of the view that the finding given by the Tribunal in an earlier year requires reappraisal either because the appreciation in its view was not quite correct or inequitable or some new facts have come to light justifying reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence on record, it should have the matter placed before the President of the Tribunal so that the case can be referred to a larger Bench of the Tribunal for adjudication and for which there is a provision in the Act." 10.3 Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. L. G. Ramamurthi (110 ITR 453) held as under: “...It may be that the members who constituted the Tribunal and decided on the earlier occasion are different from the members who decided the case on the present occasion. But what is relevant is not the personality of officers presiding over the Tribunal or participating in the hearing, but the Tribunal as an institution. If it is to be conceded that simply because of the change in the personnel of the officers who manned the Tribunal, it is open to the new officers to come to a conclusion totally contradictory to the conclusion which had been reached by the earlier officers manning the same Tribunal on the same set of facts, it will not only shake the confidence of the public in judicial procedure as such, but it will also totally destroy such confidence. The result of this will be conclusions based on arbitrariness and whims and fancies of the individuals presiding over the courts or the Tribunals and not reached objectively on the basis of the facts placed before the authorities. If a Bench of a Tribunal on the identical facts is allowed to come to a conclusion directly opposed to the conclusion reached by another Bench of the Tribunal on an earlier occasion that will be destructive of the institutional integrity itself That is the reason why in a High Court, if single judge takes a view different from the one taken by another judge on a question of law, he does not finally pronounce his view and the matter is referred to a Division Bench. Similarly, if a Division Bench defers from the view taken by another Division Bench, it does not express disagreement and pronounce its different views, but has the matter posted before a Fuller Bench for considering the question. If that is the position even with regard to a question of law, the position will be a fortiori with regard to a question of fact...” 6 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR 10.4 Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of Reliance Communications Ltd. v. DDIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 812 (Mumbai - Trib.)held that non consideration of decision rendered by co-ordinate bench on identical issue is a mistake apparent on record. 10.5 Hon’ble ITAT Jodhpur in the case of Gopal Ram Pema Ram v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 50 taxmann.com 132 (Jodhpur - Trib.) held as under: “...4. After hearing both the sides, we have found that non-application of the judgment of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and jurisdictional Tribunal does amount to a mistake apparent on record which is rectifiable under s.254(2) of the IT Act, 1961..” 11. That in the case of the assessee company, in addition to the argument of natural justice, contention in respect of merits was also elaborately raised. The merits were explained in Ground No 2 of Gist of Submissions as reproduced by the Hon’ble Bench at pages 17- 22 of the order. The assessee company also filed Paper Book of 134 pages containing the details with regards to the case of the assessee company on merits. 12. That it was brought to the knowledge of Hon’ble Bench that the issue under consideration with regards to Bad Debts Written Off was covered, in favour of the assessee company, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.R.F. Limited vs CIT Appeal No. 5293 of 2003. Further, in assessment of earlier years (A.Y. 2013-14 and A.Y. 2014-15) the issue regarding Bad Debts Written Off was allowed and matter stood accepted by the Department (ITAT Order Pages 19-20). 13. That in respect of ESI and PF matter, on a pointed query raised by the Hon’ble Bench, it was submitted at Bar that assessee company itself will move application for rectification u/s 154 to conceded addition of Rs. 4,13,759 which was inadvertently omitted by the ld. AO. The circumstance of inadvertent omission by ld. AO were explained to the Hon’ble Bench in Para B1 of Gist of Submissions as reproduced at Page 21 of ITAT order. Accordingly, application u/s 154 was moved on 22.06.2022 and copy thereof was also filed after the date of hearing on 22.06.2022. Copy of rectification application is enclosed herewith. 7 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR 14. That no decision has been given on merits of the case as can be seen from the order. 15. That not deciding the grounds related to the merits of the case and deciding just on legal grounds is a mistake apparent on record. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 15.1 Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Laxmi Electronic Corpn. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1991] 54 TAXMAN 515 (ALL.) decided a case wherein several contentions were raised, however, Tribunal dealt only with one i.e. whether the CIT order was barred by time. Hon’ble High Court decided as under: “....As stated hereinbefore, where the Tribunal fails or omits to deal with an important contention affecting the maintainability/merits of the appeal, it must be deemed to be a mistake apparent from the record, which empowers the Tribunal to reopen the appeal and rectify the same if it is so satisfied – see ITO v. ITAT [1965] 58 ITR 634 (All.), a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court and ITO v. S.B. Singar Singh & Sons [1970] 75 ITR 646 (All.) and CIT v. ITAT [1988] 172 ITR 158 /40 Taxman 59 (MP)...” 15.2 Hon’ble ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of Hansa Agencies (P.) Ltd. v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner [1999] 71 ITD 359 (ASR.) “....6. Now what happens, if the Tribunal decides issue in piece meal manner then to our mind the Tribunal has committed a mistake and the remedy allowed to the appellant is provided by section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. Because not to decide all the issues is a mistake apparent on record and it is the duty of the aggrieved party which may be either Revenue or assessee to file an application within time limit prescribed under section 254 and ask the Tribunal to give the decision on other issues. The Tribunal has no power to review order but can only modify order, if either assessee or revenue files an application. 8 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR Suo motu, the Tribunal cannot invoke section 254(2) of the Income- tax Act. The Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Trustees of H.E.H. The Nizam’s Charitable Trust [1981] 131 ITR 497/ 7 Taxman 178 has held that the Tribunal under section 254(2) has power to dispose of the issues which were not decided when the original appeal was disposed of... 10. We are also of the opinion that the ratio of the decision of East India Corpn. Ltd.’s case (supra) has to be understood in its proper perspective. The issue decided by the Hon’ble Madras High Court was regarding remand powers of the ITAT. The Hon’ble High Court has held that before the Tribunal passes an order, disposing of the appeal, there should clearly be a hearing and the scope of the hearing must, of course, depend upon the nature of the order passed by the High Court. We are deciding the issue based on judicial proprietary and on the principles of natural justice. The appellant and the Revenue as the case may be failed to invoke provisions of section 254(2) of the IT Act. However, we are of the opinion that till the pending matter gets resolved by the decision of either Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court, the decision of the ITAT achieves finality only after such decision on the issue is received back from the Hon’ble High Court and Supreme Court. It would have been legally correct if appellant or Revenue would have utilised its right by filing an application under section 256(2) of the IT Act compelling the Tribunal to decide all the issues. But in these cases, we feel astrict decision in accordance with these observations may lead to miscarriage of justice. We, therefore, recall the order passed under section 254(2) of theIT Act so that remaining grounds and issues are now decided in order to give justice to the appellant as well as the Revenue as the case may be..” 16. That all the details with regards to merits of the case were submitted before Hon’ble ITAT. However, without appreciating the same the case, in a blanket manner, was set aside to the file of PCIT. 17. That not deciding the issue wherein enough material was on record is a mistake apparent on record. Reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: 17.1. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Coca-Cola India (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar representing 9 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [2014] 52 taxmann.com 399 (Bombay) held as under: “...18...In fact, the petitioner's case was that there was enough material on record enabling the Tribunal to decide the issues raised. For the assessment year 1998-99, the evidence was filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and in relation to assessment year 1999-2000 to 2004-05, the evidence was filed in several box files before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax(Respondent No.2). In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal should have corrected this obvious mistake and error and recalled the order and direction in para-76 to this limited extent. It should not have refused to consider and decide the issue relating to service charges, more so, when an identical view taken by it earlier has not found favour of this Court. This Court repeatedly reminded the Tribunal of its duty as a last fact finding authority of dealing with all factual and legal issues. The Tribunal failed to take any note of the caution which has been administered by this Court and particularly of not remanding cases unnecessarily and without any proper direction. A blanket remand causes serious prejudice to parties. None benefits by non- adjudication or non-consideration of an issue of fact and law by an Appellate Authority and by wholesale remand of the case back to the original authority. This is a clear failure of duty which has to be performed by the Appellate Authority in law. Once the Appellate Authority fails to perform such duty and is corrected on one occasion by this Court, and in relation to the same assessee, then, the least that was expected from the Tribunal was to follow the order and direction of this Court and abide by it even for this later assessment year. If the same claim and which was dealt with by the Court earlier and for which the note of caution was issued, then, the Tribunal was bound in law to take due note of the same and follow the course for the later assessment years. We are of the view that the refusal of the Tribunal to follow the order of this Court and equally to correct its obvious and apparent mistake is vitiated as above. It is vitiated by a serious error of law apparent on the face of the record. We find much substance in the contention of Shri Dastur that the Tribunal has misdirected itself completely and in law in refusing to decide and consider the claim in relation to service charges...” 17.2 Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Silicon Graphics Systems (I) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 8(1), New Delhi [2008] 21 SOT 471 (Delhi) held as under: 10 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR “...8...Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the case would have had to be restored to the Assessing Officer to be processed with reference to section 145Anotwithstanding the earlier finding of the Tribunal that the customs duty was included in the value of the closing stock, the fact that the assessee's argument based on the order of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Maruti Udyog Ltd.'s (supra) was not considered by the Tribunal shows that there is a mistake apparent from the recording the light of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. (supra).The omission to examine the applicability of the binding order of the co-ordinate Bench with regard to the question whether section 43B would have overriding effect over section 145A is a Mistake committed by the Tribunal for which the party before the Tribunal should not be made to suffer. In the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra) as pointed out by the assessee in paragraph 1.5 at page 6 of its written submissions filed on 21-2-2007, it was held that section 43B overrides section 145A. This decision was referred to by the Tribunal in paragraph 7 of its order while summarizing the contentions of the department but unfortunately the Tribunal omitted to deal with this decision and consider its applicability while taking a decision to remit the matter to the Assessing Officer with a direction to him to examine the applicability of section 145A. We are in agreement with the submissions of the learned representative for the assessee that this omission has caused prejudice to the assessee in the sense that it has given rise to further proceedings before the Assessing Officer involving further delay in finalising the assessment proceedings when the legal position already stood concluded by the binding order of the Tribunal in Maruti Udyog Ltd.'s case (supra). The assessee will now have to face the entire proceedings again even though by virtue of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Maruti Udyog Ltd. (supra) there was no need to do so. This unfortunate state of affairs has resulted because of the mistake committed by the Tribunal in not dealing with the order of the co-ordinate Bench which was cited before it. The other mistake committed by the Tribunal to the prejudice of the assessee is its omission to refer to the assessee's plea in paragraph 1.9 at page 10 of the supplementary paper book that in the subsequent years, the Assessing Officer has accepted the assessee's claim under section 43B and assessments have been completed accordingly. As rightly pointed out on behalf of the assessee the rule of consistency is an important principle in income-tax law which has formed the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Berger Paints India Ltd. (supra) and the assessee is entitled to reasonably expect that its case on similar facts would be accepted in 11 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR all the assessment years without demur. It pointed out this position to the Tribunal but again unfortunately the Tribunal has not adverted to this aspect at all in its order...” 18. That from the above it can be seen that three errors which are mistakes apparent on record have crept in the order of the Hon’ble ITAT: 18.1 Not following decision of Coordinate Bench with regards to the argument of violation of Principles of Natural Justice inspite of the fact that there was a common member in the two Benches. 18.2 Not deciding on merits of the case inspite of elaborate contentions of the assessee company 18.3 Setting Aside the case inspite of the fact that enough material was available on record. Hence, the case of the assessee company is covered by section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961. 19. That this Miscellaneous Application is being filed u/s 254(2) before the Hon’ble ITAT to recall the its order in view of the apparent mistakes and decide the entire issue afresh after giving due opportunity to both the parties. 20. Attention is drawn towards the following judgments: 20.1 Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Champa Lal Chopra [2003] 131 TAXMAN 417 (RAJ.) held that “...in a given case where the factual mistake is so apparent that it becomes necessary to correct the same, the Tribunal would be justified in not only correcting the said mistake by way of rectification but if the judgment has proceeded on the basis of that fact, it would be justified in recalling such order and posting for hearing....” 20.2 Amzel Ltd. (MA no 583/Mum/2012 dt 5-11-2013) of the Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in which it was held that if a factual aspect which is of immense importance on the ultimate decision has not been understood correctly, it is likely to 12 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR prejudice the ultimate decision of the Bench. In such a situation, it is a duty, rather than prerogative of the Bench to recall its order based on such incorrect assumption of fact and thereafter order fresh hearing so that a correct decision can be arrived at. 21. The Hon’ble ITAT is humbly prayed to recall its order dated 31.08.2022 for reconsideration and to pass order after considering the facts and also the decision of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench.’’ Further, during the course of hearing ld. AR of the assessee relied on following case laws as to the issue raised in the Misc. Application S. NO. CASE NAME 1. Copy of order of Hon’ble Coordinate Bench Jaipur in the case of M/S Ashutosh Bhargava vs PCITITA No. 20/JP/2021 (ITAT, Jaipur) 2. Copy of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. vs CIT [2007] 165 Taxman 307(295 ITR 466) 3. Copy of order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vsM/S GoodlasNerolac Paints Ltd. [1991] 55 Taxman 484 (188 ITR 1) 4. Copy of order of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs LG Ramamurthi (110 ITR 453) 5. Copy of order of Hon’ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of M/S Reliance Communications Ltd. vs DDIT [2017] 88 taxmann.com 812 (Mumbai – Trib.) (183 TTJ 388) 6. Copy of order of Hon’ble ITAT Jodhpur in the case of M/S Gopal Ram Prema Ram. vs ACIT [2014] 50 taxmann.com 132 (Jodhpur– Trib.) (163 TTJ 255) 7. Copy of order of Hon’ble Allahbad High Court in the case of M/S Laxmi Electronic Corpn. Ltd. vs. CIT [1991] 54 Taxman 515 (Allahabad) 8. Copy of order of Hon’ble ITAT Amritsar Bench in the case of M/S Hansa Agencies (P.) Ltd. vs IAC [1999] (71 ITD 359) (Amritsar) 9. Copy of order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Coca Cola India (P.) Ltd. vs AR representing ITAT [2014] 52 taxmann.com 399 13 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR 10. Copy of order of Hon’ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of M/S Silicon Graphics Systems (I) Ltd. vs ACIT, Circle 8(1) [2008] 21 SOT 471 (Delhi) 11. M/s. K.C. Mercantile(Presently known as Genus Innovation Ltd. vs DCIT (DBIT No. 292/2016) dated 7-11-2017 (Raj.) 2.2 On the other hand, the ld. DR prayed that the assessee by way of filing the Misc. Application wants to get its order reviewed whereas there is no infirmity in the order of the ITAT (supra) for which the ld. DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 323 CTR 873 (SC). The relevant submission of the ld. DR in this case is as under:- ‘’In this case, it has been held that order of the ITAT cannot be recalled by the Tribunal in exercise of power u/s 254(2) of the Act. If the order passed by the ITAT is erroneous either on the facts or in law in that case, the only remedy available to the assessee is to prefer the appeal before the Hon’ble High Court.’’ 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record, the Bench observed that in this case the assessee even though knowing that their case is subjected to proceeding u/s. 263 has not filed any supporting submission and seek adjournment when 9 days left to complete the proceedings and has not submitted any paper and has merely filed the adjournment. Therefore, the case law cited by the ld. AR has different facts with that of the case of hand and when the assessee knowing not filled anything and merely taking the technical plea is not 14 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR correct and therefore, in the interest of the justice the bench has given chance to be heard the case of the of the assessee on merits considering the peculiar facts of the case. Thus, the ld. AR fails to demonstrate any mistake on the reasoned order of the bench. The case laws cited by the assessee are having different facts with that of the cash on hand whereas the Bench has passed the reasoned order and it does not have any infirmity considering the facts placed before the bench when hearing took place. It is also noteworthy to mention that the ld. DR has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Telecom Ltd. (supra) which the ld. AR could not controvert during the course of hearing. Hence, taking into consideration the submissions of the both the parties, the Bench finds that the order passed by it does not show any apparent mistake on record and in this view of the matter, the Misc. Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 3.0 Order is pronounced in the open Court on 16 -03-2023 Sd/- Sd/- ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ ¼jkBksMdeys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16 /03/2023 15 ITA NO.22/JP/2022 M/S. COMPUCOM SOFTWARE LTD. VS PCIT-2, JAIPUR *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- M/s. Compucom Software Ltd. Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- PCIT -2, Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 22/JP/2022) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;diathdkj@Asstt. Registrar