IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. Nos.406 & 407/PUN/2022 (Arising out of ITA Nos.2588 & 2589/PUN/2016) िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., 1148 E, Sykes Extension, Kolhapur- 416001. PAN : AAACL5602N Vs. ACIT (Central) Circle, Kolhapur. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee seeking the recall of order passed by this Tribunal in ITA Nos.2588 & 2589/PUN/2016 for A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2013-14 dated 21.06.2022 on the ground that this Tribunal while passing the impugned order had failed to adjudicate the additional ground of appeal regarding the eligibility of the income earned in the form of bank deposits for Assessee by : Adjournment application rejected Revenue by : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date of hearing : 21.04.2023 Date of pronouncement : 24.04.2023 MA Nos.406 & 407/PUN/2022 2 deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). It is further alleged that this Tribunal had not followed the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for assessment years 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 constitutes a mistake apparent from the record. 2. When the matter was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant company despite due service of notice of hearing. 3. We had carefully gone through the averments made in the Miscellaneous Petitions and find the contention that the additional ground of appeal was not disposed of, is contrary to the fact vide para 12 of the impugned order, this Tribunal had rendered a specific finding that the income earned by the assessee in the form of refund of VAT, interest income on FD with the bank etc does not qualify for deduction u/s 80IA(4) placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India vs. CIT, 317 ITR 218 (SC) and in the case of Pandian Chemicals Ltd. vs. CIT, 262 ITR 278 (SC). Thus, the decision was rendered after discussing the facts of the case and the law applicable to the facts of the case on merits, it cannot be reviewed in the guise of rectification of the order. MA Nos.406 & 407/PUN/2022 3 4. In the result, both the above Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 24 th day of April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 24 th April, 2023. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-11, Pune. 4. The CIT (Central), Pune. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.