MIKI INDUSTRIES & CO. P.LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT CEN CIR 2(2), MUMBAI

MA 26/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6638 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PADMAJA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANALI DIXIT
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Reasonable cause
• Section: 153A; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM M .A. NO . 26, 29, 28, 30 & 27 /MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO 2920, 2415, 2417, 2418 & 2419 /MUM/2015 ) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 4 - 05 , 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09 ) MIKI INDUSTRIES & COMPANIES PVT. LTD. 1 ST FLOOR, HAROON HOUSE 294, PERIN NARIMAN STREET, OPP - RBI FORT, MUMBAI / VS. D CIT CC 292) EARLIER KNOWN AS DCIT CC 12, MUMBAI . ./ ./ PAN/GIR N O. A A BCM9423D ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRANALI DIXIT / RESPONDENT BY : MS. S. PADMAJA / DATE OF HEARING : 23/02 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/05/2018 / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE P RESENT FIVE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN MOVED BY THE APPLICANT FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE BEARING ITA NO. 2920, 2415, 2417, 2418 & 2419/MUM/2015. SINCE T HE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE MISC. 2 M.A. NO . 26, 29, 28, 30 & 27/MUM/2017 MIKI INDUSTRIES & COMPANIES PVT. LTD. APPLICATION ARE SAME, THEREFORE WE ARE PASSING A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IN ALL THE MISC. APPLICATION. 2. LD. AR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIONS ON TH E GROUND THAT WHILE GOING THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE ORDE R, SEVERAL MISTAKES AND ERRORS WHICH HAVE ADV ERSELY IMPACTED THE COURSE OF JUSTICE ARE IN THE ORDER DATED 09.11.17 PASSED BY HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND I N THIS RESPECT, LD. AR DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO SEVER AL MISTAKES AND ERRORS WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN PARA NO. 2 (A) TO (D) OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION . LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO INCRI MINATING EVIDENCE /MATERIAL WAS FOUND, AS IN THESE CASE, ASSESSMENT S WERE ALREADY COMPLETED AND FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE SAID ASSESS MENTS U/S 153A, IT IS MANDATORY THAT INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE MUST BE FOUND ON SEARCH AND THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. LD. AR DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA NO. 3(A) TO (C) WHEREIN IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRESSED THE I SSUE IN RELATION TO SECTION 153A BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS WELL AS VERBAL SUBMISSIONS, BUT THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL HAS INCORRECTLY MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE ISSUE IN RELATION TO SECTION 15 3A. LASTLY, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE MISTAKES, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL MAY BE RECTIFIED. 3 M.A. NO . 26, 29, 28, 30 & 27/MUM/2017 MIKI INDUSTRIES & COMPANIES PVT. LTD. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT MISC APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE MIS - CONCEIVED AND THERE ARE NO ERROR S APPARENT ON THE RECORD, THEREFORE THE PRESENT MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD DECIDED ALL THE GROUND S ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE AND IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN PARA NO. 32 OF ITS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY SUCH GROUND BEFORE LD. CIT(A) NOR BEFORE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND NOTHING WAS COMMENTED ON THIS ISSUE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY LD. DR THAT AS FA R AS GROUNDS TAKEN IN PARA NO. 2(A) TO (D) AND 3(A) TO (C) ARE CONCERNED, THEY ARE MIS - CONCEIVED AND THERE ARE NO ERRORS AT ALL, THEREFORE THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE DISMISSED WITH COST. 4 . WE HAVE HEARD T HE COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PAR TIES AND AFTER PERUING THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS ORDER PASSED BY HONBLE TRIBUNAL DATED 09.11.17, W E NOTICE THAT THE BENCH WHILE D ISPO SING THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS, HAD PASSED A WELL - REASONED DETAILED ORDER. 5 . BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE LD. DR S UBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WHICH WARRANTS RECTIFICATION OF EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE 4 M.A. NO . 26, 29, 28, 30 & 27/MUM/2017 MIKI INDUSTRIES & COMPANIES PVT. LTD. PERUSED CASE TITLE CIT VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC AND TRADING CO . (203 ITR 497) WHEREI N THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, 'WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD', AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY I T UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED THEREIN. IT IS AN ACCEPTED POSITION THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDERS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ONLY POWER WHICH THE TRIBUNAL POSSESSES IS TO RECTIFY A NY MISTAKE IN ITS OWN ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THIS IS MERELY A POWER OF AMENDING ITS ORDER. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH I S SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLE BE TWO OPINIONS. FAI LURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION I SNOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGEMENT. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED RECTIFICATION, LOOK INTO SOME OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION.' 5 M.A. NO . 26, 29, 28, 30 & 27/MUM/2017 MIKI INDUSTRIES & COMPANIES PVT. LTD. 6 . THE DR ALSO RELIED ON CASE TITLE DHARAMCHAND SURANA VS. ITO (61 ITD 115) (TM), HOMI MEHTA & SONS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (63 ITD15). 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. I T IS WELL SETTLED THAT STATUTORY AUTHORITY CANNOT EXERCISE POWER OF REVIEW UNLESS SUCH POWER IS EXPRESSLY CONFERRED. THERE IS NO EXPRESS POWER OF REVIEW CONFERRED ON THIS TRIBUNAL. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SCOPE OF REVIEW DOES NOT EXTEND TO RE - HEARING OF THE CASE ON MERIT. IT IS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PEARL WOOLLEN MILLS (330 ITR 164) ' HELD, THAT THE TRIBUNAL COULD NOT READJUDICATE THE MATTER UNDER SECTION 254(2) . IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A STATUTORY AUTHORITY CANNOT EXERCISE POWER OF REVIEW UNLESS SUCH POWER IS EXPRESSLY CONFERRED. THERE WAS NO EXPRESS POWER OF REVIEW CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE SCOPE OF REVIEW DID NOT EXTENT TO REHEARING A CASE ON THE MERITS. NEITHER BY INVOKING INHERENT POWER NOR THE PRINCIPLE OF MISTAKE OF COURT NOT PREJUDICING A LITIGANT NOR BY INVOLVING DO CTRINE OF INCIDENTAL POWER, COULD THE TRIBUNAL REVERSE A DECISION ON THE MERITS. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RECALLING ITS PREVIOUS SRI MOOSA ABU KHALED FINDING RESTORING THE ADDITION, MORE SO WHEN AN APPLICATION FOR THE SAME RELIEF HAD BEEN EARLIER DISMISSED. ' 8 . EVEN OTHERWISE T HE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2) IS VERY LIMITED. THE SAME IS RESTRICTED TO RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD 6 M.A. NO . 26, 29, 28, 30 & 27/MUM/2017 MIKI INDUSTRIES & COMPANIES PVT. LTD. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCE S, NOW W E SHALL FIRST DEAL WITH THE QUESTION OF THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL TO RECALL AN ORDER IN ITS ENTIRETY. RECALLING THE ENTIRE ORDER OBVIOUSLY WOULD MEAN PASSING OF A FRESH ORDER. THAT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT. THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE TRIBUNAL UNDER S. 254(1) IS THE EFFECTIVE ORDER SO FAR AS THE APPEAL IS CONCERNED. ANY ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 254(2) EITHER ALLOWING THE AMENDMENT O R REFUSING TO AMEND GETS MERGED WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED. THE ORDER AS AMENDED OR REMAINING UN - AMENDED IS THE EFFECTIVE ORDER FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES. AN ORDER UNDER S. 254(2) DOES NOT HAVE EXIS TENCE DE HORS THE ORDER UNDER S. 254(1) . RECALLING OF THE ORDER IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER S. 254(2) . RECALLING OF AN ORDER AUTOMATICALLY NECESSITATES R EHEARING AND RE - ADJUDICATION OF THE ENTIRE SUBJECT - MATTER OF APPEAL. THE DISPUTE NO LONGER REMAINS RESTRICTED TO ANY MISTAKE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. POWER TO RECALL AN ORDER IS PRESCRIBED IN TERMS OF RULE 24 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963, AND THAT TOO ONLY IN CA SE WHERE THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT IT HAD A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR BEING ABSENT AT A TIME WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP AND WAS DECIDED EX - PARTE. JUDGED IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS INDEFENSIBLE. 9 . FURTHER, IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION HEREIN THE JUDGEMENT OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STEAL CAST CORPORATION (107 ITR 683) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE ORDER OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE GROUND MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN 7 M.A. NO . 26, 29, 28, 30 & 27/MUM/2017 MIKI INDUSTRIES & COMPANIES PVT. LTD. DEALT WITH THAT POINT AND THEREBY IT MEANS THAT IT WAS IMPLIEDLY REJECTED IT. BEING SO, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT, IT IS IMPLIED THAT THOUGH THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC FINDING IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ABOUT EX - PARTE ORDER, IT IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD T HAT THIS GROUND WAS REJECTED BY THE TRIBUNAL SO THAT THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND GIVEN THE FINDINGS. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ANY GRIEVANCE, THE REMEDY LIES ELSEWHERE. WE ALSO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS . PVT. LTD. (176 ITR 535) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT W HETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL OR WHETHER SOME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMENT. IF THE COURT, ON A FAIR READING OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, FINDS THAT IT HA S TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING ITS CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVERSE. IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN ITS JUDGMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, AS IF THAT WERE A MAGIC FORMULA ; IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOWS THAT IT HAS, IN FACT, DONE SO, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. 8 M.A. NO . 26, 29, 28, 30 & 27/MUM/2017 MIKI INDUSTRIES & COMPANIES PVT. LTD. SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE HAVE ALREADY DEALT WITH ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE MAIN APPEAL, THE REFORE AFTER CONSIDERING THE GROUNDS RAISED IN PARA NO. 2(A) TO (D) , THE SAME ARE MIS - CONCEIVED AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO GLARING, OBVIOUS OR PATENT MISTAKE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, THEREFORE WE ARE INCLI NED TO DISMISS THE SE GROUNDS I.E. 2(A) TO (D) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL MISC. APPLICATIONS. 10. AS FAR AS GROUND NO. 3(A) TO (C) ARE CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THESE GROUNDS TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS FOR RECALLING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL, THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: - 3.(A) IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE ISSUES IN RELATION TO THE SEC. 153A BEFORE LD. CI T(A). THE APPELLANTS SAY AND SUBMIT THATIT IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NO. 20, GROUND 4 UNDER THE HEAD OF 'ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT 24% IN RESPECT OF 2005 - 06 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE CIT(A). APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THE SAID SUBMISSION HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IN THEIR WRITTEN/ VERBAL SUBMISSION/S FILED BY THE APPELLANTS BUT THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY LD CIT (A) (A COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS ANNEXED HERETO AND MARKED AS EXHIBIT_'B'). THIS FACT IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THIS IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA NO. 32. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THIS PARA IS READS AS UNDER: 'BEFORE PARTING, WE MAY ADD THAT THE ID. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A CHART THAT IN THESE CASES ASSESSMENTS WERE ALREADY 9 M.A. NO . 26, 29, 28, 30 & 27/MUM/2017 MIKI INDUSTRIES & COMPANIES PVT. LTD. COMPLETED AND ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT IN THESE CASES U/S. 153A HAVE BEEN MADE DE HORS ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND ON SEARCH RELATING TO THE ADDITION. IN THIS REGARD, THE ID. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE L D. CI T(A) WHO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME.' B - THE APPELLANTS FURTHER SUBMIT THAT THE POINT OF 'NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APPELLANTS' HA D ALSO BEEN RAISED BEFORE HON'B L E ITAT VIDE A WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF AY 2005 - 06 ON PAGE NO. 20, GROUND N O. 4 UNDER THE HEAD OF 'ESTIMATION OF G.P 24%'. (A COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS ALREADY ANNEXED AS EXHIBIT `13')THIS POINT WAS ALSO PRESSED IN WRITTEN/VERBAL SUBMISSION AS WELL. THE CONTENTION THAT THE SAID CRUCIAL POINT WAS NO T RAISED IS NOT RIGHT. C - THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THE CONDITION STIPULATED IN SECTION 153A IS NOT SATISFIED IN THE SAID IMPUGNED ORDER. THE APPELLANTS SUBMIT THAT THIS POINT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD PRESSED IN THEI R WRITTEN SUBMISSION, REJOINDER AS WELL IN VERBAL SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LD CIT (A). THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS MISTAKE AND ERROR ON THE PART OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL THAT DESPITE MAKING OF THE SAID SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS, BY WAY OF WRITTEN AS WELL AS VERBAL SUBMISSIONS, IT PERHAPS ESCAPED THE KIND ATTENTION OF THE HONORABLE TRIBUNAL AND THUS WAS NOT CONSIDERED. THUS A SERIOUS MISTAKE AND ERROR OCCURRED AS THIS CRUCIAL POINT HAS BEEN IGNORED DESPITE THE BEST EFFORTS BY THE APPELLANTS TO PRESS THE SAME. IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE SAID POINT WAS NEITHER PRESSED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) NOR THE HONORABLE ITAT. THE APPELLANTS MAKE REPEATED SUBMISSIONS THAT THE SAID POINT AS 10 M.A. NO . 26, 29, 28, 30 & 27/MUM/2017 MIKI INDUSTRIES & COMPANIES PVT. LTD. STIPULATED IN SEC 153 A WAS PRESSED ABUNDANTLY AT ALL STAGES IN THEIR WRITTEN AS W ELL AS VERBAL SUBMISSIONS. THE APPELLANTS REITERATE THAT THIS WAS PRESSED IN MANY WAYS AND AT ALL LEVELS BY THE APPELLANTS. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE GROUNDS AS MENTIONED ABOVE AND SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND ORDERS PASSED BY US IN THE MAIN APPEAL, WE FIND THAT SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING IN PARA NO. 32 OF THE ORDER DATED 09.11.17, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN ANY SUCH GROUND NOR HAD RAISED THE ISSUE EARLIER AND EVEN LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE MATTER FURTHER. NEVERTHELESS, IF THIS PART OF MISC. APPLICATION IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS RESTORED QUA THIS PORTION TO BE DECIDED AFRESH, THEN IN OUR VIEW , NO PREJUDICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, WHEREAS IF THE CONTRARY VIEW IS TAKEN , THEN THE RIGHTS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE PREJUDICED. BE THAT AS IT MAY, CONSI DERING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CASE, WE RESTORE GROUND NO. 3(A) TO (C) RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE HEARD ON MERITS QUA THIS PORTION, BY REGULAR BENCH. THEREFORE, WE RECALL OUR FINDING IN PARA NO. 32 OF THE ORDER DATED 09.11.17 AND 11 M.A. NO . 26, 29, 28, 30 & 27/MUM/2017 MIKI INDUSTRIES & COMPANIES PVT. LTD. RESTORE THIS PORTION OF THE APPEALS TO BE DECIDED AFRESH. HENCE THE PRESENT M.AS QUA RECALLING THIS PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 09.11.17 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. THEREFORE, REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE PRESENT APPEAL S BEFORE REGULAR BENCH AND ISSUE NOTICES TO BOTH THE PARTIES FOR DECIDING THESE GROUNDS ON MERITS. 11 . IN THE NET RESULT, ALL THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S FILED BY THE APPLICANT STANDS PARTLY A LLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MA Y, 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 18 /05 /201 8 SR.PS DHANANJAY. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI