IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE : SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , JM MA.NO.293/MUM/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 400 /MUM/ 20 19) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 1 - 1 2 ) MA.NO.294/MUM/2020 (ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 401 /MUM/ 2019) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 ) MA.NO.295/MUM/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 402 /MUM/ 2019) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 ) MA.NO.296/MUM/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 403 /MUM/ 2019) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15 ) & MA.NO.297/MUM/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA N O. 404 /MUM/ 2019) ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015 - 16 ) M/S. ARGENT CONSTRUCTIONS PLOT NO.32, SINDHI SOCIETY CST ROAD, CHEMBUR MUMBAI 400 071 VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1) MUMBAI PAN/GIR NO. AARFA9002B (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) ASSESS EE BY SHRI RAJIV KHANDELWAL REVENUE BY SHRI R. BHOOPATHI DATE OF HEARING 05 / 03 /202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05 / 03 /202 1 M A NO S . 293 - 297/MUM/2020 M/S. ARGENT CONSTRUCTION 2 / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M) : BY VIRTUE OF THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO RECALL THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 400 - 404/MUM/2019 DATED 11/12/2020 FOR A.YRS. 2011 - 12 TO 2015 - 16. 2. WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION RENDERED ON PART OF FACTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ELABORATED IN DETAIL IN OUR ORDER DATED 11/12/2020. WE FIND THAT ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE HAD INDEED MADE AN ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF RS.1,88,51,945/ - EMANATING OUT OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . HO WEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DETERMINED THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE MADE @50% OF GROSS RECEIPTS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PUT TOGETHER. BY THIS PROCESS , THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE INDEPENDENT CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL EXPENSES OF RS.1,88,51,945/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) , THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE US FOR ALL THE YEARS UND ER CONSIDERATION. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN PARA 3.9 IN PAGE 8 OF ITS ORDER HAD INDEED MADE REFERENCE TO THE ADDITIONAL CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF RS.1,88,51,945/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING REFERENCE TO SEIZED DOCUMENTS ANNEXURE A - 3, HOWEVER , INADVERTEN TLY OMITTED TO GIVE ITS FINDING ON THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE SAID EXPENSES WHILE COMPUTING TAXABLE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS CONSTITUTE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WARRANTING RECTIFICATION U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. M A NO S . 293 - 297/MUM/2020 M/S. ARGENT CONSTRUCTION 3 4. WE FIND THAT BY RECTIFYING THIS ERROR, T HE ENTIRE ORDER WHICH ULTIMATELY DECIDE D TAXABLE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD GET DISTURBED AND ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE TO RECALL THE ENTIRE ORDER FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN ITS EN TIRETY WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES SO THAT INTEREST OF BOTH THE PARTIES ARE PROTECTED AND KEPT OPEN. REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THESE APPEALS ON 26/04/2021 AS MUTUALLY CONSENTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. NO FRESH NOTICES WOULD FOLLOW FOR THE SAME. 5 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05 / 03 /202 1 . SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) SD/ - (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 05 / 03 / 2021 KARUNA , SR.PS M A NO S . 293 - 297/MUM/2020 M/S. ARGENT CONSTRUCTION 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//