CNP COTTON , MUMBAI V. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 33 (1), MUMBAI

MA 234/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case revolves around a Miscellaneous Application filed by M/s CNP Cotton seeking recall of an earlier Tribunal order concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The application contested the Tribunal's previous findings that the CIT(A) had not provided adequate opportunity to the Assessing Officer to examine additional evidences related to the flow of funds. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence presented, concluded that the CIT(A) had complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 46A, and thus dismissed the application.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123264 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Manish BuildWell Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Rules, 1962
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 133(6); 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MA No. 234/MUM/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 6477/MUM/2018) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s CNP Cotton, B/50 Cotton Exchange, Near Cotton Green Railway Station, Cotton Green (East), Mumbai-400033. Vs. ACIT-33(1), Mumbai- PAN No. AAIFC 5376 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rajiv Khandelwal Revenue by : Smt. Vranda U. Matkari, DR Date of Hearing : 20/01/2023 Date of pronouncement : 03/04/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM By way of this Miscellaneous Application, the assessee is seeking recall of the order of the Tribunal dated 38.02.2022 passed in ITA No. 6477/M/2018 for assessment year 2013-14. 2. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied on the Miscellaneous Application filed Miscellaneous Application “4. The apparent mistakes that have crept in in the order of the Honourable Tribunal are given below 4.1. In para 5.1 on page no 15 of the impugned order. Honourable Tribunal has observed that, On Perusal of the above finding of the Ld. CIT(4), we find that Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the additional evidences. However after accepting those additional evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to provide reasonable Officer for examination of those evidences or cross examination of witnesses of the assessee as required under rule 461(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in sort the rules). " Further, in para 5.4 on page no 20 of the order, the Honourable Tribunal has observed that, "In the case before us also the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue without opportunity to the Ld. Assessing Officer for examining evidences of chain of fund flow from Ratakar Bank to the assessee and cross of theassessee. 4.1.1. The Applicants submit that they filed the additional evidence before the CIT(A) on 14.09.2017 which was accompanied by an application under Rule 46A (refer para 4.2 on page no 7 of the CIT(A) order). The CIT(A) forwar his comments and the Assessing Officer, after conducting necessary inquiries, submitted a remand report to the CIT(A) on 6th March, 2018, that is after more than 5 months. The relevant extract of the remand report been reproduced in para 4.3 on page no 10 of the CIT(A) order. As such, the Applicants submit that the observation of the Honourable Tribunal that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examination of the add evidence is on facts, not correct; hence, a mistake apparent on record, and is the basis/ ground for the Honourable Tribunal to "restore the matter back to the Ld. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied on the lication filed. The relevant para Miscellaneous Application arereproduced as under: 4. The apparent mistakes that have crept in in the order of the Honourable Tribunal are given below - 4.1. In para 5.1 on page no 15 of the impugned order. Honourable Tribunal has observed that, On Perusal of the above finding of the Ld. CIT(4), we find that Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the additional evidences. However after accepting those additional evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to provide reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examination of those evidences or cross examination of witnesses of the assessee as required under rule 461(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in sort the rules). " Further, in para 5.4 on page no 20 of the e Honourable Tribunal has observed that, "In the case before us also the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue without opportunity to the Ld. Assessing Officer for examining evidences of chain of fund flow from Ratakar Bank to the assessee and cross-examination of witness of theassessee. 4.1.1. The Applicants submit that they filed the additional evidence before the CIT(A) on 14.09.2017 which was accompanied by an application under Rule 46A (refer para 4.2 on page no 7 of the CIT(A) order). The CIT(A) forwarded the same to the Assessing Officer for his comments and the Assessing Officer, after conducting necessary inquiries, submitted a remand report to the CIT(A) on 6th March, 2018, that is after more than 5 months. The relevant extract of the remand report been reproduced in para 4.3 on page no 10 of the CIT(A) order. As such, the Applicants submit that the observation of the Honourable Tribunal that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examination of the add evidence is on facts, not correct; hence, a mistake apparent on record, and is the basis/ ground for the Honourable Tribunal to "restore the matter back to the Ld. M/s CNP Cotton 2 MA No. 234/M/2022 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee relied on the he relevant paragraphs of the 4. The apparent mistakes that have crept in in the order 4.1. In para 5.1 on page no 15 of the impugned order. the Honourable Tribunal has observed that, On Perusal of the above finding of the Ld. CIT(4), we find that Ld.CIT(A) has accepted the additional evidences. However after accepting those additional evidences, the Ld. CIT(A) has opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examination of those evidences or cross- examination of witnesses of the assessee as required under rule 461(3) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in sort the rules). " Further, in para 5.4 on page no 20 of the e Honourable Tribunal has observed that, "In the case before us also the Ld. CIT(A) has adjudicated the issue without opportunity to the Ld. Assessing Officer for examining evidences of chain of fund flow from Ratakar tion of witness 4.1.1. The Applicants submit that they filed the additional evidence before the CIT(A) on 14.09.2017 which was accompanied by an application under Rule 46A (refer para 4.2 on page no 7 of the CIT(A) order). The ded the same to the Assessing Officer for his comments and the Assessing Officer, after conducting necessary inquiries, submitted a remand report to the CIT(A) on 6th March, 2018, that is after more than 5 months. The relevant extract of the remand report has been reproduced in para 4.3 on page no 10 of the CIT(A) order. As such, the Applicants submit that the observation of the Honourable Tribunal that the CIT(A) failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the Assessing Officer for examination of the additional evidence is on facts, not correct; hence, a mistake apparent on record, and is the basis/ ground for the Honourable Tribunal to "restore the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for complying provisions of rule 46A(3) of rules and carry out necessary inqu 4.1.2. Insofar as the observation of the Honourable Tribunal that the CIT(A) failed to provide opportunity to the Assessing Officer to cross examine the witnesses of the Applicants is concerned, the Applicants submit that the Assessing Officer, in the remand proceedings, in his wisdom, conducted inquiries by issuing notice to various persons under section 133(6) of the Act and hence, judiciously followed the procedure known to law 4.2. In para 5.1 (2nd part) of the order, the Honourab Tribunal has observed that,"The evidences in support of entire chain of how of money from Ratakar Bank" 10BICL and then to the assessee and again back to BICL, were not forwarded to the Assessing Officer as accepted by the Ld. counsel of the assessee be evidences justifying flow of money have not been filed before us also despite specific request to the Ld. counsel of the assessee. No justifiable explanation has been provided by the assessee for flow of money described in flow chart before us. 4.2.1. The Applicants, at the outset, submit that the Authorised Representative of the Applicants did not accept that the evidence in support of flow of money has not been forwarded to the Assessing Officer. Please find enclosed an Affidavit, Authorised Representative, in support of the same. Further, please refer para 4.2 on page no 5 of the Tribunal order where the Honourable Tribunal has reproduced letter dated 21.03.2016 filed by the Applicants before the that the said letter gives the flow of money from Ratnakar Bank to BTCL and then to the Applicants, and then back to BTCL together with supporting letters/ documents. Further, it is submitted that the entire modus operandi was explained by MrBhadresh Mehta in his statement on oath dated 21.03.2016. The said statement on oath has been reproduced on page nos 20 to 22 of the assessment order. The Applicants thus, submit that to CIT(A) for complying provisions of rule 46A(3) of rules and carry out necessary inquiries if so required." 4.1.2. Insofar as the observation of the Honourable Tribunal that the CIT(A) failed to provide opportunity to the Assessing Officer to cross examine the witnesses of the Applicants is concerned, the Applicants submit that ng Officer, in the remand proceedings, in his wisdom, conducted inquiries by issuing notice to various persons under section 133(6) of the Act and hence, judiciously followed the procedure known to 4.2. In para 5.1 (2nd part) of the order, the Honourab Tribunal has observed that,"The evidences in support of entire chain of how of money from Ratakar Bank" 10BICL and then to the assessee and again back to BICL, were not forwarded to the Assessing Officer as accepted by the Ld. counsel of the assessee before us. A copy of such evidences justifying flow of money have not been filed before us also despite specific request to the Ld. counsel of the assessee. No justifiable explanation has been provided by the assessee for flow of money described in t before us. 4.2.1. The Applicants, at the outset, submit that the Authorised Representative of the Applicants did not accept that the evidence in support of flow of money has not been forwarded to the Assessing Officer. Please find enclosed an Affidavit, in original, of Mr Ankur Shah, the Authorised Representative, in support of the same. Further, please refer para 4.2 on page no 5 of the Tribunal order where the Honourable Tribunal has reproduced letter dated 21.03.2016 filed by the Applicants before the Assessing Officer.It is submitted that the said letter gives the flow of money from Ratnakar Bank to BTCL and then to the Applicants, and then back to BTCL together with supporting letters/ documents. Further, it is submitted that the entire modus was explained by MrBhadresh Mehta in his statement on oath dated 21.03.2016. The said statement on oath has been reproduced on page nos 20 to 22 of the assessment order. The Applicants thus, submit that to M/s CNP Cotton 3 MA No. 234/M/2022 CIT(A) for complying provisions of rule 46A(3) of rules and 4.1.2. Insofar as the observation of the Honourable Tribunal that the CIT(A) failed to provide opportunity to the Assessing Officer to cross examine the witnesses of the Applicants is concerned, the Applicants submit that ng Officer, in the remand proceedings, in his wisdom, conducted inquiries by issuing notice to various persons under section 133(6) of the Act and hence, 4.2. In para 5.1 (2nd part) of the order, the Honourable Tribunal has observed that,"The evidences in support of entire chain of how of money from Ratakar Bank" 10BICL and then to the assessee and again back to BICL, were not forwarded to the Assessing Officer as accepted by fore us. A copy of such evidences justifying flow of money have not been filed before us also despite specific request to the Ld. counsel of the assessee. No justifiable explanation has been provided by the assessee for flow of money described in 4.2.1. The Applicants, at the outset, submit that the Authorised Representative of the Applicants did not accept that the evidence in support of flow of money has not been forwarded to the Assessing Officer. Please find in original, of Mr Ankur Shah, the Authorised Representative, in support of the same. Further, please refer para 4.2 on page no 5 of the Tribunal order where the Honourable Tribunal has reproduced letter dated 21.03.2016 filed by the Assessing Officer.It is submitted that the said letter gives the flow of money from Ratnakar Bank to BTCL and then to the Applicants, and then back to BTCL together with supporting letters/ documents. Further, it is submitted that the entire modus was explained by MrBhadresh Mehta in his statement on oath dated 21.03.2016. The said statement on oath has been reproduced on page nos 20 to 22 of the assessment order. The Applicants thus, submit that to observe that the evidence in support of the afore of money has not been forwarded to the Assessing Officer, is on facts, not correct; hence, a mistake apparent on record. 4.2.2. The Applicants further submit that the observation of the Honourable Tribunal that the copy of evidence justifying the before the Honourable Bench is also not correct inasmuch as, and as mentioned above, the letter dated 21.03.2016 giving the entire flow of money has been reproduced in the impugned Tribunal order. Further, anothe dated 7h July. 2021 has been furnished before the Honourable Tribunal on 8 July, 2021 wherein the purpose of creating the aforesaid flow of money has been submitted. As such, the Applicants submit that the said observation of the Honourable Tribun apparent on record. 4.3. Finally, in para 5.4 (2nd part) of the order, the Honourable Tribunal has concluded that, "Thus, respectfully following the finding of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case cited above, we feel it appropriate to set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for complying provisions of rule 46A(3) of rules and carry out necessary inquiries if so required." 4.3.1. It can be seen that the Honourable Trib restored the matter to the CIT(A) only for the reason that the CIT(A) has not complied with the provisions of Rule 46A (3).The Applicants submit that, and as discussed in the foregoing paras of this Miscellaneous Application, the CIT(A) has undeni 46A(3) after admitting additional evidence by giving sufficient opportunity to the Assessing Officer 4.2 on page no 10 of the order of CIT(A). The CIT(A) has even considered the remand report of the Assessi Officer before passing the order no 12 of the order of the CIT(A). 4.3.2. Further, the Honourable Tribunal has relied on the following decisions of Honourable Delhi High Court to reach the aforesaid conclusion observe that the evidence in support of the aforesaid flow of money has not been forwarded to the Assessing Officer, is on facts, not correct; hence, a mistake apparent 4.2.2. The Applicants further submit that the observation of the Honourable Tribunal that the copy of evidence justifying the aforesaid flow of money has not been filed before the Honourable Bench is also not correct inasmuch as, and as mentioned above, the letter dated 21.03.2016 giving the entire flow of money has been reproduced in the impugned Tribunal order. Further, anothe dated 7h July. 2021 has been furnished before the Honourable Tribunal on 8 July, 2021 wherein the purpose of creating the aforesaid flow of money has been submitted. As such, the Applicants submit that the said observation of the Honourable Tribunal is a mistake apparent on record. 4.3. Finally, in para 5.4 (2nd part) of the order, the Honourable Tribunal has concluded that, "Thus, respectfully following the finding of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case cited above, we feel it appropriate set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for complying provisions of rule 46A(3) of rules and carry out necessary inquiries if so required." 4.3.1. It can be seen that the Honourable Tribunal has restored the matter to the CIT(A) only for the reason that the CIT(A) has not complied with the provisions of Rule 46A (3).The Applicants submit that, and as discussed in the foregoing paras of this Miscellaneous Application, the CIT(A) has undeniably followed the provisions of Rule 46A(3) after admitting additional evidence by giving sufficient opportunity to the Assessing Officer - refer para 4.2 on page no 10 of the order of CIT(A). The CIT(A) has even considered the remand report of the Assessi Officer before passing the order - refer para 4.5 on page no 12 of the order of the CIT(A). 4.3.2. Further, the Honourable Tribunal has relied on the following decisions of Honourable Delhi High Court to reach the aforesaid conclusion - M/s CNP Cotton 4 MA No. 234/M/2022 said flow of money has not been forwarded to the Assessing Officer, is on facts, not correct; hence, a mistake apparent 4.2.2. The Applicants further submit that the observation of the Honourable Tribunal that the copy of evidence aforesaid flow of money has not been filed before the Honourable Bench is also not correct inasmuch as, and as mentioned above, the letter dated 21.03.2016 giving the entire flow of money has been reproduced in the impugned Tribunal order. Further, another letter dated 7h July. 2021 has been furnished before the Honourable Tribunal on 8 July, 2021 wherein the purpose of creating the aforesaid flow of money has been submitted. As such, the Applicants submit that the said al is a mistake 4.3. Finally, in para 5.4 (2nd part) of the order, the Honourable Tribunal has concluded that, "Thus, respectfully following the finding of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case cited above, we feel it appropriate set aside the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute and restore the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for complying provisions of rule 46A(3) of rules and carry out unal has restored the matter to the CIT(A) only for the reason that the CIT(A) has not complied with the provisions of Rule 46A (3).The Applicants submit that, and as discussed in the foregoing paras of this Miscellaneous Application, the ably followed the provisions of Rule 46A(3) after admitting additional evidence by giving refer para 4.2 on page no 10 of the order of CIT(A). The CIT(A) has even considered the remand report of the Assessing refer para 4.5 on page 4.3.2. Further, the Honourable Tribunal has relied on the following decisions of Honourable Delhi High Court to (a) Manish Build (b) Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Private Limited - 375 ITR 373 The Applicants submit that the aforesaid decisions cannot be applied to the facts of the case of the Applicants inasmuch as in the said decisions, no report was called for from the Assessing Officer; whereas, in the case of the Applicants, as discussed in foregoing paras, the Assessing Officer has furnished a remand report to the CIT(A). 4.3.3. The Applicants thus, submit that the Honourable Tribunal ought not to have set aside the issue to the CIT(A) inasmuch as the CIT(A) has already called for a report from the Assessing Officer and has already applied his mind. It is submitted that it would be a futile exercise in sending the matter back to h facts coming on record. 3. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Tribunal has held ld CIT)A) has violated the provisions of Rules, 1962 in respect of flow of fund of Bank” to the assessee through intermediary intermediary as the Ld CIT(A) did not evidence to the Assessing Officer order noted and this fact was duly accepted by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. The Tribunal has further noted that circumstances of the case, enquiry. The Tribunal has followed the decision in the case of Manish BuildWell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and (a) Manish Build Well Private Limited - 245 ITR 397 (b) Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Private 375 ITR 373 The Applicants submit that the aforesaid decisions cannot be applied to the facts of the case of the Applicants inasmuch as in the said decisions, no report was called for from the Assessing Officer; whereas, in the case of the Applicants, as discussed in foregoing paras, the Assessing Officer has furnished a remand report to the CIT(A). 4.3.3. The Applicants thus, submit that the Honourable bunal ought not to have set aside the issue to the CIT(A) inasmuch as the CIT(A) has already called for a report from the Assessing Officer and has already applied his mind. It is submitted that it would be a futile exercise in sending the matter back to him, with no new facts coming on record.” We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Tribunal has held ld CIT)A) has violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income n respect of flow of fund of money from to the assessee through intermediary and again back to b as the Ld CIT(A) did not forward the said additional to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal in the impugned and this fact was duly accepted by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. The Tribunal has further noted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) should have carried out The Tribunal has followed the decision in the case of h BuildWell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and M/s CNP Cotton 5 MA No. 234/M/2022 245 ITR 397 (b) Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Private The Applicants submit that the aforesaid decisions cannot be applied to the facts of the case of the remand report was called for from the Assessing Officer; whereas, in the case of the Applicants, as discussed in foregoing paras, the Assessing Officer has furnished a 4.3.3. The Applicants thus, submit that the Honourable bunal ought not to have set aside the issue to the CIT(A) inasmuch as the CIT(A) has already called for a report from the Assessing Officer and has already applied his mind. It is submitted that it would be a futile im, with no new We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Tribunal has held that Rule 46A of the Income-tax money from “Ratnakar and again back to be the said additional . The Tribunal in the impugned and this fact was duly accepted by the Ld. Counsel of in the facts and the Ld. CIT(A) should have carried out The Tribunal has followed the decision in the case of h BuildWell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the as 3.1 The ld Counsel has argued that firstly, the said fund flow chart was not in the nature of additional evidence. Secondly, the Assessing Officer had duly commented on the same and so full opportunity was granted to him. impugned order has noted that the said fund flow chart was not forwarded to the Assessing officer as same was submitted by the assessee in rejoinder to the remand report and thus the Assessing Officer was not given oppournity to comment upon the same. B us, the assessee could not support that said fund flow chart was submitted before the ld CIT(A) alongwith additional evidences filed and not filed in rejoinder to remand report of the Assessing officer. Further, the Tribunal has relied on the decisio High Court of Delhi in the case of Manish BuildWell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after considering the submis and carrying out enquiries as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. case, in our opinion, recalling the appeal will amount to revisit of the issues already decided the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Telecom Ltd.(2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC). restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the as The ld Counsel has argued that firstly, the said fund flow chart was not in the nature of additional evidence. Secondly, the Assessing Officer had duly commented on the same and so full was granted to him. However, the Tribunal in t impugned order has noted that the said fund flow chart was not forwarded to the Assessing officer as same was submitted by the assessee in rejoinder to the remand report and thus the Assessing Officer was not given oppournity to comment upon the same. B us, the assessee could not support that said fund flow chart was submitted before the ld CIT(A) alongwith additional evidences filed and not filed in rejoinder to remand report of the Assessing officer. Further, the Tribunal has relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Manish BuildWell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after considering the submission of the assessee and carrying out enquiries as deemed fit in the facts and of the case. In the facts and circumstances of n our opinion, recalling the appeal will amount to revisit of the issues already decided, which is not permitted in law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Telecom (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC).This is not a case of M/s CNP Cotton 6 MA No. 234/M/2022 restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ld Counsel has argued that firstly, the said fund flow chart was not in the nature of additional evidence. Secondly, the Assessing Officer had duly commented on the same and so full However, the Tribunal in the impugned order has noted that the said fund flow chart was not forwarded to the Assessing officer as same was submitted by the assessee in rejoinder to the remand report and thus the Assessing Officer was not given oppournity to comment upon the same. Before us, the assessee could not support that said fund flow chart was submitted before the ld CIT(A) alongwith additional evidences filed and not filed in rejoinder to remand report of the Assessing officer. ns of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Manish BuildWell Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Jansampark Advertising and Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer sion of the assessee and carrying out enquiries as deemed fit in the facts and In the facts and circumstances of the n our opinion, recalling the appeal will amount to revisit of which is not permitted in law as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Telecom This is not a case of rectification of mistake apparent from record. reject the contention of the assess decision of the ITAT dated 28.02.2022. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 03/04/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// rectification of mistake apparent from record. Accordingly, we reject the contention of the assessee for rectify/recalling the decision of the ITAT dated 28.02.2022. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/0 Sd/ PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai M/s CNP Cotton 7 MA No. 234/M/2022 Accordingly, we ee for rectify/recalling the In the result, the Miscellaneous Application is dismissed. 04/2023. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai