The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Rajkot V. Bhavesh Kiritbhai Khoont, Rajkot

MA 4/RJT/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5047 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIASHISHKUMARPANDEY; FORTHEASSESSEEATTHETIMEOFHEARING; FORTHEASSESSEESUPPORTEDTHE
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIP.C.YADAV; UPHOLDINGLEVYOFPENALTYOF; MENTIONINGATPARA.ONPAGENO.THATTHE

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण,अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, (CONDUCTEDTHROUGHECOURTATAHMEDABAD) BEFOREMS.SUCHITRAKAMBLE,JUDICIALMEMBER AND SHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER Sr. No. MANo./ITA Asstt. Year NameofAppellantNameofRespondent 1. M.A.No. 04/Rjt/2022 InITANo. 319/Rjt/2018 2011-12 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot ShriBhaveshK.Khoont, “Om”,BlockNo.5/10, AstronSocietyMain Road,Rajkot PANNo.ADWPK6664K 2. M.A.No. 05/Rjt/2022 InITANo. 320/Rjt/2018 2014-15 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot ShriBhaveshK.Khoont, “Om”,BlockNo.5/10, AstronSocietyMain Road,Rajkot PANNo.ADWPK6664K 3. M.A.No. 06/Rjt/2022 InITANo. 321/Rjt/2018 2015-16 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-2(1)(1), Rajkot ShriBhaveshK.Khoont, “Om”,BlockNo.5/10, AstronSocietyMain Road,Rajkot PANNo.ADWPK6664K 4. M.A.No. 12/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 305/Rjt/2018 2012-13 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-3(1)(1), Rajkot M/s.UnitedEngineers 3,UmakantPanditUdyog Nagar,Opp.Krishan Trailors,Rajkot PANNo.AAAFU4996K 5. M.A.No. 13/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 412/Rjt/2018 2008-09 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot SajavatSalesAgency, 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot PANNo.ABGFS9927H 6. M.A.No. 14/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 312/Rjt/2018 2009-10 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot SajavatSalesAgency, 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot PANNo.ABGFS9927H 7. M.A.No. 15/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 313/Rjt/2018 2010-11 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot SajavatSalesAgency, 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot M.A.No.04/Rjt/2022with15others A.Y.2014-15&others 2 PANNo.ABGFS9927H 8. M.A.No. 16/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 314/Rjt/2018 2011-12 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot SajavatSalesAgency, 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot PANNo.ABGFS9927H 9. M.A.No. 17/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 315/Rjt/2018 2012-13 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot SajavatSalesAgency, 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot PANNo.ABGFS9927H 10. M.A.No. 18/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 316/Rjt/2018 2013-14 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot SajavatSalesAgency, 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot PANNo.ABGFS9927H 11. M.A.No. 19/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 317/Rjt/2018 2014-15 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot SajavatSalesAgency, 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot PANNo.ABGFS9927H 12. M.A.No. 20/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 318/Rjt/2018 2015-16 IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward-1(2)(1), Rajkot SajavatSalesAgency, 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot PANNo.ABGFS9927H 13. M.A.No. 21/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 388/Rjt/2018 2008-09 Assistant Commissionerof IncomeTax, Circle-1(1),Rajkot M/s.RevaInfrastructure Incorporation, 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot PANNo.AAIFR1245C 14. M.A.No. 22/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 389/Rjt/2018 2009-10 Assistant Commissionerof IncomeTax, Circle-1(1),Rajkot M/s.RevaInfrastructure Incorporation, 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot PANNo.AAIFR1245C 15. M.A.No. 23/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 150/Rjt/2019 2010-11 Assistant Commissionerof IncomeTax, Circle-1(1),Rajkot M/s.RevaInfrastructure Incorporation, 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot PANNo.AAIFR1245C 16. M.A.No. 24/Rjt/2021 2011-12 Assistant Commissionerof M/s.RevaInfrastructure Incorporation, M.A.No.04/Rjt/2022with15others A.Y.2014-15&others 3 InITANo. 151/Rjt/2019 IncomeTax, Circle-1(1),Rajkot 7-AshishCommercial Complex,Sardarnagar MainRoad,Rajkot PANNo.AAIFR1245C (Applicant)(Responent) Assesseeby:ShriP.C.Yadav,A.R. Revenueby:ShriAshishKumarPandey,Sr.D.R सुनवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:27/10/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख / DateofPronouncement:29/11/2023 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThesepresentMisc.Applicationsaredirectedattheinstanceofthe RevenuepointingoutsomeapparentmistakeintheorderoftheITATdated 08.07.2021passedinITANos.listedaboveandseekingnecessarymodification thereofbyrecallingthesame. First,wetakeupMANo.04/Rjt/2022(inITANo.319/Rjt/2018)forA.Y2011-12in caseofBhaveshKKhoontastheleadcase. 2.TheRevenueinthisMiscellaneousApplicationhasfiledwrittensubmissions runningfrompages1to2whichareavailableonrecord.Thewrittensubmission filedbytheRevenuereadsasunder: “2.Inthiscase,penaltyu/s271(1)(c)oftheActwasleviedbyDCIT,CC-1,Rajkotfor Rs.10,85,190/-videorderdtd.25.05.2017.Aggrievedwiththepenaltyorder,theassessee preferredanappealbeforetheld.CIT(A)-11,A'bad.Thereafter,theld.CIT(A)-11,A'bad disposedofftheappealagainsttheassesseebyupholdinglevyofpenaltyof Rs.10,85,190/-u/s271(1)(c)oftheAct. 3.TheassesseebeingaggrievedwiththeorderpassedbytheLd.CIT(A)-11,A'bad filedanappealbeforetheHon'bleITAT,RAJKOT. M.A.No.04/Rjt/2022with15others A.Y.2014-15&others 4 4.TheHon'bleITAT,RajkotBench,Rajkotvideabovereferredappealorderhas disposedofappealoftheassesseebymentioningatpara14.1onpageno.10thatthe Ld.DRhasnotcontrovertedthefactsonchronologyofeventspertainingtosection153D approvalobtainedfromtheconcernedAOthroughRTI.Further,onmeritofsection153D approval,thewrittensubmissiondtd.24.06.2021frompages1-7oftheLd.CIT(DR)were dulysubmittedduringthecourseofhearingbytheLd.CIT(DR).Butthebenchhasnot counteredanyoftheargumentsanddecisionsreferredbytheLd.CIT(DR)andfinal decisionofthebenchatParano.14.16hasbeenarrivedatbyreferringtoonlythe submissionsandcourtdecisionsoftheappellant.Accordingly,thebenchheldthatthe assessmentu/s153Cwithoutproperapprovalu/s153Dwasvoid-ab-initioandaccordingly thepenaltyleviedu/s271(1)(c)oftheActofRs.10,85,190/-hasnotbeensustainedon technicalgrounds. 5.0AftergoingthroughtheorderoftheHon.RajkotBench,itisnoticedthatthe benchhasnottakennoteofLd.D.R'swrittensubmissionsdtd.24.06.2021.TheHonBench hasmentionedatPara14.4onpageno.10thattheLd.DRhasnotcontrovertedthefacts onchronologyofeventspertainingtosection153Dapprovalobtainedfromtheconcerned AOthroughRTI.Itisseenthattherewasnothingtocontrovertonthefactsobtainedfrom theAObytheLd.D.R.However,onmeritofsection153Dapproval,thewrittensubmission frompages1-7wereexplainedduringthecourseofhearingsbytheD.R.Butthebench hasnotcounteredanyoftheargumentsanddecisionreferredbytheLd.D.Randfinal decisionofthebenchatpara14.16wasarrivedatbyreferringtoonlythesubmissionsand courtdecisionsoftheappellant.Thebenchheldthattheassessmentu/s153Cwithout properapprovalu/s153Dwasvoid-ab-initioandaccordinglythepenaltyu/s271(1)(c)was notsustainedontechnicalgrounds. 5.1.TheHon’bleITATBenchhasnotconsideredthewrittensubmissionfiledbythe CIT(DR)duringthecourseofhearing.Therefore,theappealneedstoberecalledandre- adjudicatedafterconsideringthesubmissionoftheCIT(DR). 5.2Asregards,themeritsofpenaltyorderu/s271(1)(c)r.w.Explanation5Aofthe Act,theHon.Benchhasgivenfindingatpara13.4holdingthatnopenaltyu/s271(1)(c) r.w.Explanation5Awasapplicabletoassessmentframedu/s143(3)r.w.s.referringto principleslaiddownbytheHon.BombayHighcourtinthecaseofGulabBadgujar.This aspectwasarguedbytheLd.D.Rbyreferencetothevariouscourtdecisionsputforthby theappellantandcounteringthesamebyanalyzingtherelevantfactsofthosecasesvis-a- visofthecurrentcases.BriefsummaryoffactsofrecasesreliedonbytheARwas submittedinwriting.TheBombayHighcourtdecisionofRajkumarBadgujarcasewas specificallymentionedbytheLd.D.Ronpageno.10ofthewrittensubmissionastohow thefactsinthecurrentcaseswereentirelydifferent.TheHon.Benchignoredthisfactual analysisfiledinwritingaswellasarguedorallybytheLd.D.Rduringthecoursehearing beforetheHon'bleTribunal.' 6.Inthefactsandcircumstancesnarratedabove,orderNo.319to321/RJV2018 dated08/07/2021oftheHon'bleITATforassessmentyear2011-12mayberecalledfor freshadjudication.ItisfurthernoticedthattheerrorscommittedbytheHon.Benchthat eventheassessmentscompletedu/s143(3)r.w.s.153Ccouldnothavebeenheldasvoid- ab-initio,assection153Dapprovalwasrequiredforonlysection153Aassessments. Accordingly,theHon'bleITATisrequestedtore-considertheabovestated submission/argumentsfiled/arguedbytheLd.CIT(DR)duringthecourseofhearingsinthe appealandadjudicatethesame.” M.A.No.04/Rjt/2022with15others A.Y.2014-15&others 5 2.1Inviewoftheabove,ld.DRsubmittedthatthereisanapparentmistakein theorderoftheITATwithintheprovisionsofsection254(2)oftheAct.Therefore, theorderoftheITATshouldbere-calledforfreshadjudication. 3.Ontheotherhand,theLd.ARfortheassesseeatthetimeofhearing submittedthatthescopeoftherectificationunderSection254(2)oftheActis limitedtothemistakeapparentonrecord.AccordingtothelearnedAR,the approvalwasobtainedbytheAOinthemechanicalmatterandthereforethe assessmentframedinpursuancetosuchapprovalcannotbeheldasvalid.Once theassessmentorderisnotvalid,thequestionoflevyingthepenaltyin consequencetosuchassessmentorders,doesnotarise.Theld.ARalsosubmitted thatinthegroupcaseoftheassesseei.e.ShriDharmeshK.Khoont,theMA’s werepreferredbytheRevenuebearingNos.02-03/RJT/2022inITANos.303- 304/RJT/2018whichweredismissedbytheITATvideorderdated8-07-2021. Therefore,aspertheld.AR,thesameviewshouldalsobetakenfortheMA’s underconsideration.Thus,thereisnosuchmistakeapparentfromrecordinthe orderoftheITATinthepresentcase.TheLd.ARfortheassesseesupportedthe orderoftheITAT. 4.Wehavedulyconsideredtherivalcontentionsandgonethroughthe recordscarefully.Attheoutset,wefindthattheTribunalinthegroupcaseofthe assesseei.e.ShriDharmeshK.Khoont,theidenticalMA’swerepreferredbythe RevenuebearingNos.02-03/RJT/2022inITANos.302-304/RJT/2018whichwere dismissedbytheITATvideorderdated08-07-2021byobservingasunder: 5.Wehavedulyconsideredtherivalcontentionsandgonethroughtherecordscarefully.The provisionofsub-Section2ofSection254hasdirectbearingonthecontroversybeforeus. Therefore,itisimperativeuponustotakenoteoftherelevantpartofsection,whichreadas under: “OrdersofAppellateTribunal. 254.(1)TheAppellateTribunalmay,aftergivingboththepartiestotheappe.lan opportunityofbeingheard,passsuchordersthereonasitthinksfit. (1A)[***] M.A.No.04/Rjt/2022with15others A.Y.2014-15&others 6 (2)TheAppellateTribunalmay,atanytimewithin 63 [sixmonthsfromtheendofthe monthinwhichtheorderwaspassed],withaviewtorectifyinganymistakeapparent fromtherecord 64 ,amendanyorderpassedbyitundersub-section(1),and 64 shall makesuchamendment 64 ifthemistakeisbroughttoitsnoticebytheassesseeor the 65 [Assessing]Officer: Providedthatanamendmentwhichhastheeffectofenhancinganassessmentor reducingarefundorotherwiseincreasingtheliabilityoftheassessee,shallnotbe madeunderthissub-sectionunlesstheAppellateTribunalhasgivennoticetothe assesseeofitsintentiontodosoandhasallowedtheassesseeareasonable opportunityofbeingheard” 6.Beforeweembarkuponanenquiryonthefactsofpresentcaseinordertofindout whetherthereisanyapparenterrorcommittedbyTribunalornotwhileadjudicatingthe appeal,wethinkitappropriatetobearinmindcertainbasicprinciplesforexercisingthe powerscontemplatedinSection254(2)oftheIncomeTaxAct,1961inthelightofvarious judgmentsofHon’bleSupremeCourtaswellasHon’bleHighCourtexpoundingthescopeof exercisingpowersunderSection254(2)oftheAct.Wedonotdeemitnecessarytoreciteand recapitulateallofthem,butsufficetosaythatcoreofalltheseauthoritativepronouncements isthatpowerforrectificationunderSection254(2)oftheActcanbeexercisedonlywhen mistake,whichissoughttoberectified,isanobviousandpatentmistake,whichisapparent fromtherecordandnotamistake,whichisrequiredtobeestablishedbyargumentsandlong drawnprocessofreasoningonpoints,onwhichtheremayconceivablybetwoopinions.For fortifyingthisview,wemakereferencetothedecisionoftheHon’bleJurisdictionalHighCourt inthecaseofACITVs.SaurashtraKutchStockExchangeLd.,262ITR146whichhasbeen upheldbytheHon’bleSupremeCourtreportedin305ITR227.TheHon’bleCourthaslaid downfollowingpropositionwhileconcludingthejudgment: "(a)TheTribunalhaspowertorectifyamistakeapparentfromtherecordonitsown motionoronanapplicationbyapartyunders.254(2)oftheAct; (b)Anorderonappealwouldconsistofanordermadeunders.254(1)oftheActorit couldbeanordermadeundersub-s.(1)asamendedbyanorderundersub-s.(2)ofs. 254oftheAct; (c)Thepowerofrectificationistobeexercisedtoremoveanerrororcorrecta mistakeandnotfordisturbingfinality,thefundamentalprinciplebeingthatpowerof rectificationisforjusticeandfairplay; (d)Thatpowerofrectificationcanbeexercisedevenifamistakeiscommittedbythe Tribunalorevenifamistakehasoccurredattheinstanceofpartytotheappeal; (e)Amistakeapparentfromrecordshouldbeself-evident,shouldnotbeadebatable issue,butthistestmightbreakdownbecausejudicialopinionsdifferandwhatisa mistakeapparentfromtherecordcannotbedefinedpreciselyandmustbelefttobe determinedjudiciallyonthefactsofeachcase; (f)Non-considerationofajudgmentofthejurisdictionalHighCourtwouldalways constituteamistakeapparentfromtherecord,regardlessofthejudgmentbeing renderedpriortoorsubsequenttotheorderproposedtoberectified; (g)Afterthemistakeiscorrected,consequentialordermustfollowandtheTribunal haspowertopassallnecessaryconsequentialorders." 7.Inthelightoftheabovediscussion,weproceedtoadjudicatethemiscellaneous applicationfiledbytherevenue.OnperusaloftheITATorderwenotethattheITAThas passedaspeakingorderafterconsideringprovisionsofAct,assessmentorder,penaltyorder, M.A.No.04/Rjt/2022with15others A.Y.2014-15&others 7 legislativeintent,CBDTcircularandmakingreliancetovariousjudicialpronouncementwhich havebeendiscussedinlengththereinandnoinfirmityonsuchfindingwaspointedbythe Revenue.Assuch,theprovisionsofSection254(2)oftheActcanbeinvokedforthemistakes whichareglaringinnatureandcanbepointedfromthefaceoftheorder.Themistakeswhich requireapplicationofmindandlongdrawnprocesstoarriveattheconclusioncannotamount toapparentmistake.Ifthesetypesofmistakesareconsideredasapparentfromrecordthenit wouldleadtoreviewtheorder.Inthisregard,wefindsupport&guidancefromthejudgment ofHon’bleDelhiHighCourtinthecaseSmt.BaljeetJollyVs.CITreportedin113taxman38 whereinitwasheldasunder: “Abarelookatsection254(2)makesitclearthata'mistakeapparentfromtherecord' isrectifiable.Inordertoattracttheapplicationofsection254(2),themistakemust existandthesamemustbeapparentfromtherecord.Thepowertorectifythe mistake,however,doesnotcovercaseswherearevisionorreviewoftheorderis intended.'Mistake'meanstotakeorunderstandwronglyorinaccurately;tomakean errorininterpreting;itisanerror;afault,amisunderstanding,amisconception. 'Apparent'meansvisible;capableofbeingseen;easilyseen;obvious;plain.Amistake whichcanberectifiedundersection254(2)isonewhichispatent,whichisobvious andwhosediscoveryisnotdependentonargumentorelaboration.Thelanguageused insection254(2)makesitclearthatonlyamendmenttotheorderpassedunder section254(1)ispermissiblewhereitisbroughttothenoticeoftheTribunalthat thereisanymistakeapparentfromtherecord.Amendmentofanorderdoesnotmean obliterationoftheorderoriginallypassedanditssubstitutionbyaneworder.Whatthe assesseeintended,todointheinstantcasewaspreciselythesubstitutionoftheorder, whichwasnotpermissibleundertheprovisionsofsection254(2)and,therefore,the Tribunalwasjustifiedinholdingthattherewasnomistakeapparentonthefaceofthe record.Whereanerrorisfarfromself-evident,itceasestobeanapparenterror.Itis nodoubttruethatamistakecapableofbeingrectifiedundersection254(2)isnot confinedtoclericalorarithmeticalmistake.Ontheotherhand,itdoesnotcoverany mistakewhichmaybediscoveredbyacomplicatedprocessofinvestigation,argument orproof.AsobservedbytheApexCourtinMasterConstructionCo.(P.)Ltd.v.State ofOrissa[1966]17STC360,anerrorwhichisapparentonthefaceoftherecord shouldbeonewhichisnotanerrorwhichdependsforitsdiscoveryonelaborate argumentsonquestionsoffactorlaw.” 8.Weareconsciousofthefactthaterroroffactandlawinappreciatingthecircumstances couldfallintheambitofapparenterrorbutnoterrorofjudgmentreachedafterapplying correctfactsandcorrectlaw,becausethatwillbeprocessofadjudicatingthecontroversythat canleadtodifferenceofopinionquaresult.Butifincorrectfactsandincorrectprovisionsare considered,thenthatwouldcomeintheambitofapparenterror.Inthisregard,weplaceour relianceonthejudgmentofBombayHighCourtinthecaseofRameshElectric&trading companyreportedin77taxman43whereinitwasheldasunder: “TheAppellateTribunaldoesnothaveanypowertoreviewitsownordersunderthe provisionsoftheIncome-taxAct,1961.TheonlypowerwhichtheTribunalpossesses istorectifyanymistakeinitsownorderwhichisapparentfromtherecord.Thisis merelyapowerofamendingitsorder.Intheinstantcase,inthefirstorderofthe Tribunaldated9-6-1975,therewasnomistakewhichwasapparentfromtherecordat all.TheTribunalwasrequiredtodecidewhetherthecommissionpaymentofRs. 54,000wasdeductibleundersection37afterexaminingthecircumstances,the Tribunalcametotheconclusionthatitwasnotsodeductible.TheTribunalcannot,in exerciseofitspowerofrectification,lookintosomeothercircumstanceswhichwould supportornotsupportitsconclusionsoarrivedat.ThemistakewhichtheTribunalis entitledtocorrectisnotanerrorofjudgmentbutamistakewhichisapparentfrom therecorditself.Nosuchmistakewasapparentfromtherecord.Infact,thiswas doubtful,ifthissortofanexercisecouldhavebeendonebytheTribunalevenifithad M.A.No.04/Rjt/2022with15others A.Y.2014-15&others 8 thepowerofreview.TheTribunalhad,patently,farexceededitsjurisdictionunder section254(2)inredecidingtheentiredisputewhichwasbeforeitinthisfashion,and theTribunalhadcommittedagrossandinexplicableerrorforreasonswhichcouldnot beunderstood. Thepowerofrectificationundersection254(2)canbeexercisedonlywherethe mistakeisapparentfromtherecord,andnotamistakewhichisrequiredtobe establishedbyargumentsandalong-drawnprocessofreasoningonpointsonwhich theremightconceivablybetwoopinions.FailurebytheTribunaltoconsideran argumentadvancedbyeitherpartyforarrivingataconclusionisnotanerrorapparent ontherecord,althoughitmayhavebeenanerrorofjudgment.Intheinstantcase, theallegedfailure,atleastononecount,wasattributedbytheassesseetotheITO andnottheTribunalTherefore,theTribunalhadnojurisdictionundersection254(2) topassthesecondorder.” 9.Admittedly,theITAThaspassedthereasonedorderafterconsideringalltheargumentsof theLd.DR,orderofthelowerauthoritiesetc.Inviewoftheabove,itcannotbesaidthatthe orderoftheITATsuffersfromanymistakeapparentfromtherecord.Hence,the miscellaneousapplicationfiledbytheRevenueisherebydismissed. 10.Intheresult,bothMisc.ApplicationsoftheRevenuearedismissed. 4.1Thefactsofthepresentcaseareidenticaltothefactsofthecases discussedabove.Therefore,tomaintainconsistencyandparity,wedonotwantto deviatefromtheabovefindinggivenbytheITATinthegroupcaseswhere identicalfactswereinvolved.Hence,theMApreferredbytheRevenueishereby dismissed. 5.Intheresult,theMiscellaneousApplicationfiledbytheRevenueis dismissed. Nowcomingtothefollowing15MiscellaneousMA’sfiledbythe Revenue Sr. No. M.ANo.Assessee/Respondent 1. M.A.No.05/Rjt/2022 InITANo. 320/Rjt/2018 IncomeTaxOfficervs.ShriBhaveshK. Khoont 2. M.A.No.06/Rjt/2022 InITANo. 321/Rjt/2018 IncomeTaxOfficervs.ShriBhaveshK. Khoont 3.M.A.No.12/Rjt/2021IncomeTaxOfficervs.M/s.United M.A.No.04/Rjt/2022with15others A.Y.2014-15&others 9 InITANo. 305/Rjt/2018 Engineers 4. M.A.No.13/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 412/Rjt/2018 IncomeTaxOfficervs.SajavatSales Agency 5. M.A.No.14/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 312/Rjt/2018 IncomeTaxOfficervs.SajavatSales Agency 6. M.A.No.15/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 313/Rjt/2018 IncomeTaxOfficervs.SajavatSales Agency 7. M.A.No.16/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 314/Rjt/2018 IncomeTaxOfficervs.SajavatSales Agency 8. M.A.No.17/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 315/Rjt/2018 IncomeTaxOfficervs.SajavatSales Agency 9. M.A.No.18/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 316/Rjt/2018 IncomeTaxOfficervs.SajavatSales Agency 10. M.A.No.19/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 317/Rjt/2018 IncomeTaxOfficervs.SajavatSales Agency 11. M.A.No.20/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 318/Rjt/2018 IncomeTaxOfficervs.SajavatSales Agency 12. M.A.No.21/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 388/Rjt/2018 AssistantCommissionerofIncomeTax vs.M/s.RevaInfrastructure Incorporation 13. M.A.No.22/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 389/Rjt/2018 AssistantCommissionerofIncomeTax vs.M/s.RevaInfrastructure Incorporation 14. M.A.No.23/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 150/Rjt/2019 AssistantCommissionerofIncomeTax vs.M/s.RevaInfrastructure Incorporation 15. M.A.No.24/Rjt/2021 InITANo. 151/Rjt/2019 AssistantCommissionerofIncomeTax vs.M/s.RevaInfrastructure Incorporation 6.Attheoutset,wenotethattheissuesraisedbytheRevenueintheMA’s listedaboveareidenticaltotheissueraisedbytheRevenueinM.A.No. 04/RJT/2022inthecaseofShriBhaveshK.Khoont.Therefore,thefindings M.A.No.04/Rjt/2022with15others A.Y.2014-15&others 10 giveninM.A.No.04/RJT/2022shallalsobeapplicabletopresentMA’sbearing Nos.05&06/Rjt/2022,12/Rjt/2021,13to20/Rjt/2021&21to24/Rjt/2021.The MiscellaneousAppealoftheRevenuebearingM.A.No.04/Rjt/2022hasbeen decidedbyusvideparagraphNo.4ofthisorderagainsttheRevenue.The learnedDRandtheARalsoagreedthatwhateverwillbethefindingsforthe assessmentyearinM.A.No.04/Rjt/2022shallalsobeappliedtotheM.A.Nos.05 &06/Rjt/2022,12/Rjt/2021,13to20/Rjt/2021&21to24/Rjt/2021.Hence,the groundsofMA’sfiledbyRevenuearedismissed. 6.1Intheresult,theMiscellaneousApplicationsfiledbytheRevenueare dismissed. 7.Inthecombinedresults,alltheMiscellaneousApplicationsfiledbythe Revenuearedismissed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton29/11/2023atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (SUCHITRAKAMBLE) JUDICIALMEMBER (WASEEMAHMED) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad;Dated29/11/2023 Manish