MA NO. 317/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3346/MUM/2014 PANKAJ METALS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO.317/MUM/2017 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3346/MUM/2014) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) PANKAJ METALS 318/319,TARDEO AC MARKET TARDEO MUMBAI- 400 034 / VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-16(3) MATRU MANDIR, 2 ND FLOOR ROOM NO.206, TARDEO ROAD MUMBAI-400 007 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AAIFP-1763-H ( ! ' /APPELLANT ) : ( #$' / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIPUL JOSHI, LD. AR REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJAT MITTAL, LD. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 19/01/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/01/2018 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE AS SESSEE SEEKS AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION IN TRIBUNALS ORDER ITA NO.3 346/MUM/2014 DATED 14/03/2017. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE [AR] DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THERE WERE TWO ISSUES IN THE MA NO. 317/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3346/MUM/2014 PANKAJ METALS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 2 REVENUES QUANTUM APPEAL VIZ. ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.36(1)(III). THE LD. AR FURTHER CONTEND ED THAT BOTH THE ISSUES HAVE ERRONEOUSLY BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION SINCE, DURING HEARING OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE CONTEN DED THAT LD. CIT(A) APPRECIATED CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES DURING PRO CEEDINGS BEFORE HIM WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO LD. AO IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. HOWEVER, LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCES WERE FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO GROUND N O.2 ONLY. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE [DR] POINTED OUT TH AT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED WITH RESPECT TO BOTH THE GROUNDS WHICH WERE CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A) IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 2. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE PLEAS OF RESPEC TIVE REPRESENTATIVES. WE FIND THAT THE SCOPE OF RECTIFIC ATION / AMENDMENT OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDERS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 254(2) IS VERY NARROW AND THE SAME COULD BE RESORTED TO ONLY WITH A VIEW TO R ECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOTHING BEYOND. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDERS AND REOPEN THE HEARING B Y PROVIDING ANOTHER INNING OF ARGUMENTS TO RESPECTIVE PARTIES THE REVEN UE, DURING HEARING OF THE APPEAL, POINTED OUT THAT LD. CIT(A) APPRECIATED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO LD. AO IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A AND THEREFORE, PLEADED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. AO FOR APPRECIATION OF THE SAME. THE LD. AR IMMEDIATELY AG REED FOR THE SAME AND NEVER RAISED THE ISSUE ON MERITS IN ANY MANNER OR DID NOT REBUT THE REVENUES CONTENTIONS. NO DISCUSSION ON MERITS ON A NY OF THE GROUNDS, MA NO. 317/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3346/MUM/2014 PANKAJ METALS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 3 WHATSOEVER, WAS MADE BY THE RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATI VES. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE ARE UNABLE TO ENTERTAIN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. RESULTANTLY, THE APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE S TANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH JANUARY,2018. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGAR WAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 19.01.2018 SR.PS:- THIRUMALESH ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$' / THE RESPONDENT 3. , ( ! ) / THE CIT(A) 4. , / CIT CONCERNED 5. #&. , ! . , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /0 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI