VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM M.A. NO. 34/JP/2016 ARISING OUT IF ITA NO. 858/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05. M/S. S. SINGHAL & CO., E-27, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWADI, DIST. ALWAR. CUKE VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MOTI MUNGARI, ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAFFS 2873 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ADDL. CIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08.07.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/07/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE ARIS E OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 858/JP/2013 SEEKING RECTIFICATI ON OF THE ORDER DATED 09.03.2016 ON THE GROUND THAT SOME INADVERTENT MISTAKES ARE CR EPT IN THE ORDER. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS ARE MADE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND SUBMITTED THAT TH ERE IS A MISTAKE IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. THE L D. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS WRONGLY RECORDED THE FACT THAT THE BIL LS HAVING BEEN SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT. IN FACT, THE BILLS WER E NOT SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT. ON THE CONTRARY, THESE WERE SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF S. K. SINGHAL, ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED TH AT ASSESSEE IS ALSO IN THE 2 MA NO. 34/JP/2016 M/S. S. SINGHAL & CO. BUSINESS OF SHARE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS SALE AND P URCHASE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HAVING SHAREHOLDING IN REAL ESTATE PROJECTS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS A PRACTICING C.A. IT IS NOT THE FIRM BUT THE GROUP WHICH IS ALLEGEDLY ENGAGED IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSIN ESS, AND THIS FACT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF AO. WHILE CONCLUDING THE ARGUMENTS, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS COMMIT TED MISTAKES WHICH ARE APPARENT ON RECORDS AND PRAYED RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER. H E PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. CIT (2007) 295 ITR 466 (SC) IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIO N. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R FOR THE REVENUE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APP ARENT FROM RECORD. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS, IT EMERGES THAT THERE WAS OMISSION OF FACT S ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL. CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, WE H ERE BY RECALL OUR ORDER DATED 09.03.2016 AND DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO FIX THE APPEA L IN DUE COURSE. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/07/2016 . SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO] ( DQY HKKJR ) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 11/07/2016. DAS/ 3 MA NO. 34/JP/2016 M/S. S. SINGHAL & CO. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S. S. SINGHAL & CO., ALWAR. 2. THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MOTI D UNGARI, ALWAR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. M.A. 34/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR