SUNIL MANTRIL REALTY LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 4 ( 3) , MUMBAI

MA 376/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3856 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT PRATAP SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Rectification of order; Search and seizure; Additional evidence; Retraction; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 201; 254(2); 69

Judgement Text

T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ( A M) & SHRI RAMLAL NEGI (JM) M.A. NO. 37 6 /MUM/2019 ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO. 7207 /MUM/ 201 1 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 8 - 0 9 ) M/S. SUNIL MANTRI REALTY LTD. G - 1, COURT CHAMBERS GRO UND FLOOR, V. THAKERSEY MARG, 35, NEW MARINE LINES CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI - 400020. PAN AADCM6966F V S . ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, ROOM NO. 411 4 TH FLOOR AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI - 400 020. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI SANJAY C. SHAH DEPARTMENT BY SHRI A MIT PRATAP SINGH DATE OF HEARING 13.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28 . 0 2 . 20 20 O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) : - BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS U NDER SECTION 254(2) IN THE ORDER OF THIS T RIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 7207 /MUM/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.12.2018 2. W E HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE NOTE THAT IN THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE THE I TAT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A ) WHEREIN HE HAD DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ITAT HAS ERRED ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING T HE ITAT HAS IGNORED THAT THE EXISTENCE OF ACCOUNTIN G ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE AND DETERMINATIVE OF THE CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME. THE ITAT HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT PRESUMPTION U/S. 132(4) AND 132(4A) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE. M/S. SUNIL MANTRI REALTY LTD. 2 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY REBUTTED THE SAME. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT HAS UPHELD THE SAME INCOME ARISING OUT OF ALLEGED SALE OF GOREGAON PROPERTY IS TAXED AGAIN AND AGAIN WHICH DEFEAT S THE CONCEPT OF REAL INCOME. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON SEV ERAL CASE LAWS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ELABORATED UPON AS TO WHY THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE PRESENT CASE. THAT NO INCOME PER TAINING TO HYDERABAD PROPERTY HAD ACCRUED IN A.Y. 2008 - 09 THOUGH THE ITAT HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME. THAT THE ITAT HAS IGNORED THE APP LICABILITY OF ACCOUNTING STANDARD - 9 ON REVENUE RECOGNITION. THAT THE ITAT HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAN ON AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 4. PER CONTRA, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT HAS PASSED AN ELABORATE ORDER AND HAS REVERSED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT ORDER CONTAINS ALL THE REASONING. HE SUBMITTED THAT A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE IT A CT. 5 . UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE FIND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE. IN THIS REGARD WE MAY GAINFUL LY REFER RED TO THE FINDING OF THE ITAT IN THIS REGARD AS UNDER : - 19. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. FIRST OF ALL WE NOTE THAT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE PURSUANT TO A SEARCH ACTION. THE ASSESSM ENT HAS BEEN FRAMED U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 153A OF THE ACT. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S. 132(4) ON THE ASSESSEE GROUP ON 09.07.2008. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 153A ON 20.10.2010. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 09.07.2 008, THE DEPARTMENT HAS SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES, PAGES CONTAINING PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MARCH, 2008 AND SCHEDULE THERETO. PAGE NO. 7 OF THE SAID PAGES REFLECTED THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE PERIOD 31 ST MARCH, 2008 AND IT WAS SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY. WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE SAID PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: M/S. SUNIL MANTRI REALTY LTD. 3 M/S. SUNIL MANTRI REALTY LTD. 4 M/S. SUNIL MANTRI REALTY LTD. 5 20. SHRI SUNIL P. MANTRI, CMD OF THE SAID COMPANY GAVE A STATEMENT OF OA TH ON 10.07.2008. IN THE SAID STATEMENT, THE SAID DIRECTOR, DULY ACCEPTED THE DETAIL PROVIDED IN THE UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEET. HE FULLY ACCEPTED THE VERACITY OF THE FIGURES SHOWN THEREIN. HE ACCEPTED THAT AS PER THESE ACCOUNTS PROFIT BEFORE TAX WAS RS.73.72 CRORES AND THE PROVISION FOR TAXATION IS ESTIMATED AT RS.25.08 CRORES. HE ALSO ACCEPTED THAT THESE ARE THE REFLECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAID DIRECTOR MADE A RETRACTION. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET FOUND DURING SEARCH WAS MEANT FOR GIVING THE SAME TO THE BANK FOR OBTAINING HIGHER CREDITS. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING SUBMITTED THE SAID BALANCE SHEET TO THE BANK WAS FOUND. HENCE, THIS THEORY ENTERS COGENCY. FURTHERMO RE, THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS MADE CONTRARY CLAIM THAT THE SAID ACCOUNT CONTAINED VARIOUS JOURNAL ENTRIES PASSED BY INEFFICIENT ACCOUNTS PEOPLE WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CORRECTED. THERE IS NO EXPLANATION M/S. SUNIL MANTRI REALTY LTD. 6 WHATSOEVER AS TO HOW IN - EXPERIENCED ACCOUNTING STAFF CA N PASS JOURNAL ENTRIES, RESULTING IN A THOROUGHLY DIFFERENT BALANCE SHEET. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE A STATEMENT HAS BEEN OBTAINED U/S. 132(4) THAT DULY PROVIDES THAT SUCH A STATEMENT OBTAINED HAVE AN EVIDENTIALLY VALUE. WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE PROVI SION OF SECTION 132(4) IN THIS REGARD AS UNDER: SEARCH AND SEIZURE. 132. (4) THE AUTHORISED OFFICER MAY, DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE, EXAMINE ON OATH ANY PERSON WHO IS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING AND ANY STATEMENT MADE BY SUCH PERSON DURING SUCH EXAMINATION MAY THEREAFTER BE USED IN EVIDENCE IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME - TAX ACT, 1922 (11 OF 1922), OR UNDER THIS ACT. EXPLANA TION. FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT THE EXAMI - NATION OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS SUB - SECTION MAY BE NOT MERELY IN RESPECT OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS FOUND AS A RESULT OF THE SEARCH, BUT ALSO IN RESPECT OF ALL MA TTERS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY INVESTIGATION CONNECTED WITH ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THE INDIAN INCOME - TAX ACT, 1922 (11 OF 1922), OR UNDER THIS ACT. 21. FURTHER, THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH HAVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THIS IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE PROVISION OF SECTION 132(4A) OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: SEARCH AND SEIZURE. 132. (4A) WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE OR IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERS ON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH, IT MAY BE PRESUMED ( I ) THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BELONG OR BELONGS TO SUCH PERSON ; ( II ) THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OT HER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE ; AND ( III ) THAT THE SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHE R DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY, OR TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF, ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, ARE IN THAT PERSONS HANDWRITING, AND IN THE CASE OF A DOCUMENT STAMPED, EXECUTED OR ATTESTED, THAT IT WAS DULY STAMPED AND EXECUTED OR ATTESTED BY THE PERSON BY WHOM IT PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN SO EXECUTED OR ATTES TED. 22. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FORMED NOT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF THE M/S. SUNIL MANTRI REALTY LTD. 7 DIRECTOR U/S. 132(4) BUT ALSO ON THE BASIS OF THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH. IT IS SETT LED LAW THAT THE ADDITION U/S. 153A CAN BE MADE IF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING SEARCH. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, THESE BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DULY SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR ACCOMPANIED BY SCHEDULE THERE FOUND CAN BE SAID TO BE N OT INCRIMINATING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY WERE MEANT TO BE PRESENTED AT BANK. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY RESULTED FROM WRONG JOURNAL ENTRIES PASSED BY THE INEFFICIENT ACCOUNTING STAFF. 23. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED IN EXPLANATION THAT INEXPERIENC ED STAFF HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING WRONG ACCOUNTING ENTRIES: SR. NO. PARTICULAR AMOUNT 1. ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM INDO SAIGAON AGENCY WRONGLY BOOKED IN SALE 10,00,00,000/ - 2. ENTITY OF MANTRI PARK FLAT SALE TO GROUP COMPANY (ALLIANCE FIN STOCK LTD.) 10,40,00,000/ - 3. ENTRY OF MANTRI PARK FLAT SALE TO GROUP COMPANY (MANTRI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.) 14,27,52,500/ - 4. ENTRY OF HYDERABAD PROPERTY SALE TO GROUP COMPANY CARDINAL REALTORS PVT. LTD. 95,00,00,000/ - TOTA L 1,29,67,52,500/ - SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT FOLLOWING WRONG ENTRIES WERE PASSED: DEBTORS A/C. C R. 1,26,65,61,454 TO SALE OF FLATS & LANDS A/C (INCOME) CR. 1,26,65,61,454 (BEING SALES BOOKING, ADVANCES, ENQUIRIES OF SALES RECORDED) 24. FIRSTLY WE NOTE THAT THE FIGURES IN THE SO CALLED DETAIL AND THE SO CALLED WRONG JOURNAL ENTRIES DO NOT MATCH. HENCE, THE VERACITY OF THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. FURTHER, IF SUCH A HUGE ERROR ENTRY WAS MADE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, AND IT REMAINED UNDETE CTED TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH, I.E., 09.07.2008, IS TOTALLY IMPROBABLE. THAT SUCH WRONG OVER STATED SALES OF MORE THAN RS.100 CRORES BEING TWICE OF THAT OF ACTUAL INCOME WAS STATED IN THE ACCOUNTS AND THE DIRECTOR WAS NOT AWARE WHEN HE SIGNED THE ACCOUNT, I S ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE. THESE ARE CLEARLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO MAKE AN EXPLANATION THAT UNSOLD ITEMS HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR SALES WITHOUT PROPER EVIDENCE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEVOTED HIS ENTIRE ORDER IN REFERRING TO THE ASSESSEES EVIDENCE AS TO HOW THESE PLOTS HAVE REMAINED UNSOLD. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THESE ARE CLEARLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE. THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY MADE AN AFTERTHOUGHT TO REDUCE THE PROFIT IS EVI DENT BY THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF WRONGLY ACCOUNTING FOR M/S. SUNIL MANTRI REALTY LTD. 8 CERTAIN SALES. FULLY AWARE THAT SUCH REVERSAL OF SALE WILL RESULT IN ABNORMAL COMPARABLE PROFITS, IN THE SUBSEQUENT ACCOUNT THE COST OF SALES HAS ALSO REDUCED BY RS.89,20,48,427/ - FROM RS.1,6 2,79,86,886/ - TO RS.73,59,38,459/ - . ADMITTEDLY, THIS CAN ONLY BE RESULT OF UNEXPLAINED OTHER ACCOUNTING INGENUITY. NO DETAIL EXPLANATION FOR THIS IS ON RECORD. HENCE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REVISED AFTER SEARCH TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF TAX AND HALF BAKED FACTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN EXPLANATION. THIS HAS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS THAT IN THE SAME SEARCH, AUDITED ACCOUNTS WERE ALSO FOUND OF EARLIER YEAR, WHICH WERE LATER CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE WRONG. 25 . IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTIONS U/S. 132(4) AND 132(4A) OF THE ACT AND THE CLEAR INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED VARIOUS REASONING OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH PUT ONUS ON THE A.O. TO PROVE THAT CERTAIN ITEMS WHICH WERE IMAGINARY AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE CLEARLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT, WERE ACTUALLY SOLD AND THE SALE PROCEED WAS RECEIVED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE FAILED TO DISPROVE THE PRESUMPTION U/S. 132(4) AND 132(4A) AND THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND, THE VARIOUS OTHER SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IMAGINARY AND MERELY AN AFTERTHOUGHT. THE LD. CIT(A) IS REFERRING TO CASE LAWS WHICH ARE NOT AT ALL IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ADDITION U /S. 153A. THESE ARE OLD CASE LAWS PRIOR TO THE INSERTION OF SECTION 153A. THE LD. CIT(A) IS EVEN MENTIONING THAT EVEN IF THE ADDITION IS BASED UPON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE DONE AS THE A.O. HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE TH AT WHAT IS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AS PER ASSESSEES AFTERTHOUGHT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT IS TOTALLY UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORE - SAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT, WE S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE A.O. APROPOS DELETION/ADDITION OF RS.1.81 CRORES: 26. ON THIS ISSUE, THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH. HE OBSERVED THAT WITH REGARDS TO NOTINGS, IT HAS BEE N STATED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND DURING THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS THAT THE SAME WERE RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE'S PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AT WALKESHWAR, MUMBAI. A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE FIGURES GIVEN THEREIN INDICATED THAT THE TENANTS WERE TO BE SETTLED FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.9,01,00,000/ - AND THE FACILITATORS WERE TO BE PAID 16.05 CRORES. HOWEVER, THE FIGURE INDICATED IN THE PAGE 85 IS RS.26.87 CRORES. THE APPLICATION TO THE BANK FOR ISSUE OF PAY ORDER/DD ALSO INDICATED ONLY THE AMOUNT TOTALING TO RS.25.06 CRORES, LEAVING AN AMOUNT OF RS.1.81 CRORES UNEXPLAINED. NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES OR MATERIAL HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED OR FURNISHED IN THIS REGARD AND THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY'S CMD THAT THIS WAS PROPOSED PROJECT A ND PAYMENTS INDICATED IN THE BANKING DOCUMENTS ARE CORRECT, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED ON THE FACE VALUE AND HENCE THE DIFFERENCE OF M/S. SUNIL MANTRI REALTY LTD. 9 RS.1.81 CRORES IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 OF THE A CT. UPON THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL, THE LD. CIT - A DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE FURTHER NEGOTIATED WITH THE PAYEES AND SETTLED FOR A LESSER AMOUNT THAN THAT WHICH WAS APPARENT FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT FURTHER MATERIAL THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE IMPUGNED SUMS FROM OTHER SOURCES. 27. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 28. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT DOCUMENTS INCRIMINATING IN NATURE WERE FOUND IN THE SEARCH. FROM THE MATERIALS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HERE - IN - ABOVE IT WAS CLEAR THAT A SUM OF RS.1.81 CRORES HAS BEEN PAID WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. THE LD.CIT - A HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY MAKING CONJECTURES THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE MADE FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PAYEES AND SETTLED THE MATTER FOR AN AMOUNT LESS THAN RS.1.81 CRORES. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THIS IN VIEW OF THE MATERIALS FOUND D URING SEARCH AND THE PRESUMPTIONS ARISING OUT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A). INSTEAD THE LEARNED CIT - A HAS PUT THE ONUS ON ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED SUM WAS PAID BY OTHER MEANS BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT - A IS CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE MANDATE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A) AND THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT - A AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 . A READING OF THE ABOVE MAKES IT CLE AR THAT IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION ASSESSEE IS SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS AGITAT ING THE SAME POINTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE ITAT ORDER. NOW THE SAME CANNOT BE REVIEWED. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS A COMMON ORDER FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 & 2008 - 09. THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 IN M. A. NO. 375/MUM/2019 HAS ALSO BEEN DISPOSED OF F BY THE TRIBUNAL WITH SIMILAR REMARKS. 7. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER HAS BE EN PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 . 2 . 20 20 . M/S. SUNIL MANTRI REALTY LTD. 10 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAMLAL NEGI ) (SH A MIM YAHYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 28 / 0 2 / 20 20 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CI T 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ) PS ITAT, MUMBAI