SHRI ASHWIN D.NAIK., Ahmedabad V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(5), Ahmedabad

MA 419/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5089 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K MAHESH
• Assessee Lawyers: G S PATEL
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JM AND D.C.AGRAW AL, AM SHRI ASHWIN D. NAIK, PROP. NAVYUG ELECTRIC CORPORATION, GIDC ESTATE, VATVA, AHMEDABAD. VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(5), AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI G. S. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI K. MAHESH, DR O R D E R PER D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE RAISING FOLLOWING ISSUES :- 2. THE APPLICANT SUBMITS THAT THERE ARE FOLLOWING MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1 AND 1.1 OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HON. BENCH, WHICH REQUIRE R ECTIFICATION:- (A) PARA 4.2 (I)THERE IS, THUS NO CORRELATION BE TWEEN THE REVISED FIGURE OF SALE, AND THE REVISED FIGURE OF CLOSING STOCK. COMMENTS (I) THE HON. BENCH HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASONS FOR THE SAID FINDING, AND IT IS NOT SUPPORT ED BY THE FACTS ON RECORD. 4.2 (II) .HOWEVER, THERE IS NO BASIS OR MATERIAL FOR THE LATTER REVISION, I.E. OF THE DECREASE IN THE VALUE OF CLOS ING STOCK BY M.A.NO.419/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3078/AHD/2003 ASST. YEAR :1992-93 M.A. NO.419/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3078/AHD/2003 ASST. YEAR 1992-93 2 RS.95,896/- AND WHICH, AS BECOMES APPARENT, ON THE BASIS OF HIS EXPLANATIONS, WAS MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE REV ISED SALES, AND WHICH WE HAVE CONSIDERED AND FOUND AS NOT MAINTAINA BLE, THE TWO BEING DE LINKED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STOCK RECORD OR QUANTITATIVE TALLY IN THEIR RESPECT, WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS A S NOT FEASIBLE TO MAINTAIN DUE TO A LARGE NUMBER OF SMALL ITEMS IT CA RRIES IN INVENTORY, EVEN AS THE ITEMS UNDER REFERENCE ARE NO T SMALL ITEMS, SO THAT ITS THIS CONTENTION, AT LEAST IN SO FAR AS THE SE ITEMS ARE CONCERNED, IS NOT VALID. COMMENTS (II) THE LINK BETWEEN THE SALES OF RS.1,08,505/- AND TH E REDUCED STOCK OF RS.95,896/- IS GIVEN AS PER PAGES 2-3 OF PAPER BOOK FILED ON RECORD WHICH IT SEEMS HAS BEEN OVERLO OKED. THE SPECIFIC ITEMS OF STOCK ARE DIRECTLY LINKED WITH SA LES. THIS IS COGENT EVIDENCE FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE STOCK. FURTHER, THE OUTSTANDING IN THE ASSESSEES STOCK HYPOTHECATION (CASH CREDIT) ACCOUNT AS AT THE YEAR END IS AT RS.1 8.87 LAKHS. AS SUCH, THE VALUE OF ITS CLOSING STOCK AS AT THAT DAT E WOULD BE AT LEAST RS.19.84 LAKHS I.E. AS PER THE ORIGINAL (UNREVISED) ACCOUNTS, CONSIDERING THAT THE MARGIN MONEY WHICH THE BANK DE DUCTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE DRAWING POWER AGAINST TH E STOCK HYPOTHECATED IS GENERALLY IN RANGE OF 20% TO 25%. COMMENT (III) IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.92 THE OUTSTANDING SECURED LOAN WAS OF RS.18,87,352/- AS PER SCHEDULE C OF CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, HYPOTHECATION & PLEDGE.(SECURED AGAI NST RAW MATERIALS, WORK-IN-PROCESS, FINISHED GOODS & BOOK D EBTS). DEBTORS ARE OF RS.40,41,381/- STOCKS ARE OF RS.18,88,523/- TOTAL RS.59,29,904/- THE SECURED LOAN IS AGAINST STOCK AND BOOK DEBTS. HENCE, THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT BASED ON CORRECT FACTS. (B) THE HON. BENCH HAS NOT DEALT WITH GROUND NO. 1.1 COMMENTS - THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT MADE BEFORE HIM. AS SU CH THE M.A. NO.419/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3078/AHD/2003 ASST. YEAR 1992-93 3 APPELLANT HAS TAKEN A SPECIFIC GROUND NO.1.1 BEFORE THE HON. BENCH WHICH IS NOT DEALT WITH BY HON. BENCH. (C) PARA 4.3 THE FOREGOING, COUPLED WITH THE AN OMALIES MENTIONED ABOVE, AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE REVENUE, VID E THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS STAND RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE REVENUE. COMMENTS (I) THE ANOMALIES OF THE REVENUE WERE FULLY EXPLAIN ED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AS NOTED BY HIM IN THE ORDER. THO SE SUBMISSIONS ARE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. (II) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE COMMENTS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE FINDING OF PARA 4.3 AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR GROUN D NO.1 AND 1.1 IS NOT BASED ON FACTS AND EVIDENCES FILED ON RECORD WH ICH IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND REQUIRES RECTIFICATION. AS SUCH, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER IN R ESPECT OF GROUND NO.1 AND 1.1 BE RECTIFIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMME NTS AS ABOVE AND OBLIGE. 2. THE TRIBUNAL HAD PASSED THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.3078/2003, ASST. YEAR 1992-93 ON 27.4.2007. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRONEOUSLY CONFI RMED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF REDUCTION OF CLOSI NG STOCK FROM RS.19,84,196/- TO RS.18,88,300/-. IT WRONGLY GAVE A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO CO-RELATION BETWEEN THE REVISED FIGURES OF SALE AND REVISED FIGURES OF CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN THE PAPER BOOK WHOSE PAGES NOS.2 & 3 CLEARLY SHOWED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE SALES MADE BY IT TO ITS SISTER CONCERN NAMELY M/S S.M.P.S. ELECTROPOWER (P) LTD.FOR RS.1,08,505/-. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE SALES OF RAW MATERIAL SUCH A S MS BARS, MS ANGLES AND C.I. CASTINGS OF SPECIFIC QUANTITIES AS MENTIONED ON PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHOSE COST VALUE WAS WORKED OUT AT R S.95,896/- AND SALE VALUE WAS DETERMINED AT RS.1,08,505/-. THIS SALE VA LUE WAS INCLUDED IN THE REVISED SALES AND ACCORDINGLY COST VALUE THEREO N WAS REDUCED FROM THE M.A. NO.419/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3078/AHD/2003 ASST. YEAR 1992-93 4 CLOSING STOCK. THIS RESULTED INTO INCREASE OF SALES FROM RS.1,35,43,631/- TO RS.1,36,52,136/- AND CORRESPONDING DECREASE IN C LOSING STOCK FROM RS.19,84,419/- TO RS.18,88,523/-. THE TRIBUNAL, ACC ORDING TO THE LD. AR ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO CO-RELATION BETWEEN THE SALES OF CLOSING STOCK AND, THEREFORE, IT DID NOT ACCEPT THE REDUCTION FROM CLOSING STOCK OF THE COST VALUE BUT ACCEPTED THE INCREASE I N SALES. THUS THERE IS A CLEAR ERROR ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NOT ACCE PTING THE REDUCTION IN CLOSING STOCK. 3. AGAINST THIS, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIB UNAL HAD CONSIDERED ALL THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE IT AND HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT THERE IS NO CO-RELATION BETWEEN SALES MADE AND CLOS ING STOCK LEFT. NOW IF SUCH REDUCTION IS ALLOWED IT WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4. THE LD. AR THEN REFERRED TO HIS POINT NO.4.2(III ) AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE OBSERVATIONS WHICH ARE NOT CORRECT ON FAC TS. 5. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO HIS ISSUE AT 4.2(I II) AND SUBMITTED THAT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE NOT BASED ON FACTS AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE IN RESPECT OF NOT ALLOWING REJECTION OF RS.95,896/-. WE NOTICE THAT T HE TRIBUNAL HAD IN PARA 4 DISCUSSED IN DETAIL WHY IT DID NOT INCLINE TO ACC EPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. PARA 4 THEREOF READS AS UNDER :- 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, I.E. BET WEEN THE NET PROFIT AS PER THE ORIGINAL PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT RS.2,30,630/-) AND AS PER THE REVISED M.A. NO.419/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3078/AHD/2003 ASST. YEAR 1992-93 5 ACCOUNTS (RS.1,94,822/-). THE SAID RECONCILIATION C ONTAINS A POSITIVE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.12,609/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID SA LES OF RAW MATERIAL TO M/S S.M.P.S. ELECTROPOWER (P) LTD. THE REVENUE HAD, WHILE ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES REVISED SALES AT AN INCREMENTAL AMOUNT O F RS.1,08,505/- DECLINED TO GRANT THE CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT/REDU CTION IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE GOODS SOLD, WHICH IS MADE VALUING THE SAME AT COST I.E. 95,896/- (REFER PAPER BOOK PG.1). THE REVENUE COULD NOT ADOPT AN AMBIVALENT APPROACH I.E. ACCEPTING THE SALES AND NO T THE CORRESPONDING DECLINE IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THE LD. DR ON THE OTH ER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, STATING THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE BONA FIDES OF THE REVISION IN ITS ACCOUNTS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4.1 WE FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE DECLINE D TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSOR'S PROFIT RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, WHEREIN THE IMPUGNED ENTRY OF RS,95,8967- APPEARS, ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE 'S REVISED ACCOUNTS, AND WHICH INCLUDES THE REVISED REPORT THEREON, WERE AVAILABLE WITH IT BY 15-03-1993, WHILE THE RETURN OF INCOME STOOD TILED BY THE ASSESSES SUBSEQUENTLY ON 31-03-1993. AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO N EED OR OCCASION FOR IT TO HAVE FIFED THE ORIGINAL OR UNREVISED ACCOUNTS . THE ASSESSEE'S OUTSTANDING IN THE OVERDRAFT AVAILED BY IT FROM ITS BANKERS, I.E., AGAINST THE HYPOTHECATION OF ITS STOCK-IN-TRADE, AS AT THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IS AT RS,18,87,952/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS, DESPITE GRA NT OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES, BEEN UNABLE TO SUBMIT THE STOCK STAT EMENT AS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR AS GIVEN TO ITS BANK, AND WHICH WOULD ONLY REVEAL A HIGHER VALUE OF STOCK, I.E., CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE'S DRA WING POWER THERE - AGAINST, AND WHICH WOULD ONLY BE AFTER DEDUCTING A REASONABLE MARGIN, IS AT FEAST AT RS.LB.R8 LACS. ALSO, IT IS NOT UNDERSTA NDABLE AS TO HOW THE BILLS ISSUED IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, JANUARY- AND FEBRU ARY COULD BEAR THE NUMBERS 1. 2 &3 AND, SECONDLY, OMITTED TO BE ENTERE D IN THE ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNTS (AS IT IMPLIES THAT THE SALE BILLS ACCOUNT ED WERE DIRECTLY FROM BILL # 4 ONWARDS), 4.2 WITHOUT DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE T O SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE ANOMALIES THAT STAND MENTIONED HEREINBEFORE, AN D WHICH FORM THE BASIS OF THE REVENUE'S CASE. HOWEVER, THE MOOT POIN T THAT REMAINS IS WHETHER THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN ITS PROFI T, AS REVEALED BY THE REVISED ACCOUNTS AT RS. 1,94.822/-. BY RS,95,896/-. FOR THIS IT WOULD BE ESSENTIAL TO SEE AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE'S STOCK, AS DISCLOSED, STOOD DETERMINED. THE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTEDLY NOT MAINTAIN ING ANY STOCK RECORDS. AS SUCH, THE ONLY BASIS FOR THE ACCOUNTING OF ITS CLOSING STOCK AS M.A. NO.419/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3078/AHD/2003 ASST. YEAR 1992-93 6 AT THE YEAR END, EVEN AS ADMITTED BY THE LD. AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IS THE PHYSICAL STOCK TAKING THEREOF, AS AT THE YEAR E ND, VALUING THE SAME AT COST. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ONLY CONTROVERSY IS WHETHER THE OMISSION TO RECORD SALES EFFECTED DURING THE YEAR WOULD LEAD TO A CORRESPONDING REDUCTION IN THE STOCK OF GOODS AS AT THE YEAR END. CLEARLY, IF THE STOCK RECORDS STAND MAINTAINED, AND THE CLOSING STOCK ACC OUNTED FOR ON THE BASIS OF THE QUANTITY AS SHOWN (OF THE DIFFERENT IT EMS OF INVENTOR) AS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR AS PER THE SAID RECORD, THE NON-R ECORDING OF THE SALES WOULD DEFINITELY LEAD TO A CORRESPONDING INFLATION IN THE QUANTITIES OF THE DIFFERENT GOODS TO THE EXTENT THE SAME STAND ACTUAL LY SOLD- OR CONSUMED IN THE PRODUCTION OF THE GOODS SOLD, THOUGH NOT RECORD ED, AND THUS TO A CORRESPONDING REVISION/DEFLATION ON THE RECORDING O F THE SAID SALES OMITTED TO BE RECORDED EARLIER. HOWEVER, WHERE THE BASIS OR THE DRAWING OF THE FINAL ACCOUNTS IS THE PHYSICAL STOCK TAKING, IT IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW THE FAILURE TO RECORD A PARTIC ULAR SALE TRANSACT! ON (S) WOULD LEAD TO A CORRESPONDING REDUCTION IN THE QUANTITY AND, THUS, THE AMOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK, AS URGED BY THE ASSESSES I N THE PRESENT CASE, VALUING THE SAME AT THE COST OF THE GOODS, SAFES OF WHICH STAND NOT RECORDED, I.E., AL RS. 95,896/-, UNLESS AND UNTIL W E ARE TO CONSIDER THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF STOCK TAKING AS A HASH ONE, AND T HE ASSESSEE ONLY DISCLOSING A FIGURE OF CLOSING STOCK AS IT DEEMS AP PROPRIATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND FOR WHICH WE SEE NO WARRANT, AND NEITHER IS IT THE REVENUE'S CASE, AND WHICH, IF TRUE, WOULD LEAD TO A REJECTION OF ITS BOOKS, AND ESTIMATION OF ITS TRADING RESULTS. THERE IS, TH US, NO CORRELATION BETWEEN THE REVISED FIGURE OF SALE, AND THE REVISED FIGURE OF CLOSING STOCK. THE FORMER REVISION (BEING DUE TO THE OMISSION TO R ECORD THE RELEVANT BILLS) WOULD LEAD TO AN INCREASED SALES, AND INCREA SE IN THE CREDIT TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C TO THAT EXTENT, WITH A CORRESPOND ING INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF THE TRADE DEBTORS, WHICH WE ALSO OBSERVE. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO BASIS OR MATERIAL FOR THE LATTER REVISION, I.E.. OF THE DECREASE IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK BY RS.95,896/-, AND WHICH, AS BECO MES APPARENT, ON THE BASIS OF HIS EXPLANATIONS, WAS MADE ONLY ON THE BAS IS OF THE REVISED SALES, AND WHICH WE HAVE CONSIDERED AND FOUND AS NOT MAINT AINABLE; THE TWO BEING DE-LINKED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STOCK RECORD OR QUANTITATIVE TALLY IN THEIR RESPECT, WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS AS NOT FEA SIBLE TO MAINTAIN DUE TO A LARGE NUMBER OF SMALL ITEMS IT CARRIES IN INVENTO RY, EVEN AS THE ITEMS UNDER REFERENCE ARE NOT SMALL ITEMS SO THAT ITS THI S CONTENTION AT LEAST IN SO FAR AS THESE ITEMS ARE CONCERNED, IS NOT VALID. FURTHER THE OUTSTANDING IN THE ASSESSEES STOCK HY POTHECATION (CASH CREDIT) ACCOUNT AS AT THE YEAR END IS AT RS.18.87 L AKHS. AS SUCH, THE VALUE OF ITS CLOSING STOCK AS AT THAT DATE WOULD BE AT LE AST RS.19.84 LAKHS I.E. AS PER THE ORIGINAL (UNREVISED) ACCOUNTS, CONSIDERING THAT THE MARGIN MONEY M.A. NO.419/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3078/AHD/2003 ASST. YEAR 1992-93 7 WHICH THE BANK DEDUCTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING O UT THE DRAWING POWER AGAINST THE STOCK HYPOTHECATED IS GENERALLY IN RANG E OF 20% TO 25%. THE MAIN REASONING ADVANCED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED DAY TO DAY STOCK INVENTORY AND, THEREFOR E, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A LINK BETWEEN THE SALES MADE TO M/S S.M.P.S. ELEC. (P) LTD. AND REDUCTION IN STOCK. AN OPINION HAS BEEN FORMED AND FINDING OF FACT HAS BEEN GIVEN THAT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALL OWED BECAUSE NEXUS BETWEEN OUTFLOW OF STOCK AND SALES MADE TO S.M.P.S. ELEC. (P) LTD. IS NOT ESTABLISHED. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY DAY TO DAY STOCK INVENTORY. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANN OT BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT. IT ALL DEPENDS ON A VIEW TAKEN ON APPRECIA TION OF FACTS. ONCE A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON APPRECIATION OF ENTIRE FACTS IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO HOLD THAT SUCH VIEW WAS INCO RRECT OR COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN. IN FACT THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY OR ERROR INVOLVED IN THIS VIEW WHICH COULD BE RECTIFIED AND AFTER SUCH RECTIFICATI ON FINAL OUTCOME COULD CHANGE. THE POWER UNDER SECTION 254 IS CONFINED TO RECTIFY A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. WE HAVE TO CONFINE OURSEL VES WITHIN THOSE PARA METERS. SECTION 254 IS NOT A PLATFORM TO CHANGE THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL BY SUBSTITUTING OUR VIEW WHICH WE BELIEVE SHOULD HA VE BEEN TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS POWER IS NOT A MANDATE TO UNSETTLE D ECISION TAKEN AFTER DUE DELIBERATION AND APPLICATION OF MIND. THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 254 ONLY EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO CORRECT MISTAKES, ERRORS A ND OMISSION APPARENT ON THE FACE. THIS SECTION IS NOT AN AVENUE TO REVIV E A PROCEEDINGS BY RECOURSE TO A NEW AND FRESH ARGUMENT NOR IT CONTEMP LATES A FRESH LOOK OF A DECISION TAKEN ON MERITS. HOWSOEVER THE ALTERNATIVE VIEW MAY SEEM BETTER BUT WE ARE BOUND BY JUDICIARY RESTRAIN. WE A RE THEREFORE, UNABLE TO SUBSTITUTE OUR VIEW WHICH COULD FAVOUR THE ASSESSEE IN PLACE OF A VIEW ALREADY TAKEN WHICH DOES NOT FAVOUR THE ASSESSEE. W E CANNOT AND WE WILL M.A. NO.419/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3078/AHD/2003 ASST. YEAR 1992-93 8 NOT PUT THE JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE TO ANY CASUALTY AS THIS IS NOT WHAT THE PARLIAMENT HAS ENVISAGED. 7. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE REJECT THE MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12.11.10. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (D.C. AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 12.11.10. MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD M.A. NO.419/AHD/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.3078/AHD/2003 ASST. YEAR 1992-93 9 1.DATE OF DICTATION 8/10/2010. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 20/10/2010 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S . 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..