ITL & FABRICS P.LTD, V. ASST CIT OSD-I,

MA 46/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0604 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Deemed dividend; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. PAGE 1 OF 7 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'I' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ) ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247/MUM/2010 DATE OF HEARING: 14/6/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/6/2013 O R D E R PER RAJENDRA SINGH, AM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE REQUESTING FOR RECALL/AMENDMENT OF ORDER DATED 21-9 -2012 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 7247/MUM/2010. THE ASSESSE IN THE MISCELLAN EIOUS APPLICATION HAS POINTED OUT CERTAIN MISTAKES IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUN AL BASED ON WHICH THE REQUEST HAS BEEN MADE FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDE R. 2. BEFORE WE PROCEED TO DEAL WITH THE MISTAKE POINT ED OUT IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO GIVE A BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAD OBTAINED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 2 CRORE FR OM ITL INDUSTRIES LTD. THE AO NOTED THAT SHRI RAJAN K. LAL WAS A COMMON SH ARE HOLDER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS OF ITL INDUSTRIES LTD., HOLDING MORE THAN 20% SHARE HOLDING IN EACH CASE. HE, THEREFORE, FORMED T HE BELIEF THAT LOANS TAKEN M/S ITL FABRICS PRIVATE LTD. C/O. JAM CASTING PVT. LTD. 154, GURU GOVING SINGH INDL. ESTATE, GOREGAON (E) MUMBAI 400 063. PAN:- AAACI 4803 N ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, OSD -1 CENTRAL RANGE AAYKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY. MS. NEERAJA PRADHAN ASSESSEE BY: SHRI N.R. AGRAWAL MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. PAGE 2 OF 7 BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ITL INDUSTRIES LTD WAS TAXABLE AS DEEMED DIVIDENT U/S 2 (22)(E) OF THE IT ACT AND ACCORDINGLY HE REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS TO THE ABO VE APPEAL. THE AO IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER NECESSARY EXAMINATIO N TREATED A SUM OF RS. 1,25,65,756/- AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E). THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS THE MERIT OF ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE IT ACT. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE LEG AL VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON U/S 2(22)(E) TO THE TUNE OF RS. 97,91,884/-. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER HA S FILED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION POINTING OUT SOME APPARENT MISTAKES IN THE ORDER AND REQUESTED THE SAME TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. THE FIRST MISTAKE POINTED OUT IS THAT THE TRIBUN AL HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE DEPOSITS FROM THE TENANT DURING THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSIN ESS AND AS CONSIDERATION FOR LETTING OUT OF THE OFFICE PREMISES. THE ASSESS EE HAD INCREASED THE DEPOSITS IN LIEU OF RENT FOREGONE. THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) WERE NOT APPLICABLE. THE TRIBUNAL HAD HOWEVER HELD THAT THE TENANT HA NOT ADVANCED THE MONEY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND TH EREFORE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 2(22(E)(II) WERE NOT FULFILLED . IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED THE SAID ARGUMENT AND T HE ARGUMENT ACUTALLY RAISED HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. 3.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND AFTER CONSID ERING THE RECORDS, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 3.7 HAD DULY CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT AS TO WHET HER THE ADVANCES WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH LETTING OU T OF PREMISES. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LET OUT THE PR EMISES TO M/. ITL INDUSTRIES LTD. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 ON A D EPOSIT OF RS. 95,68,938 AND MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 1.50 LAKH. DURING THE CURRE NT YEAR, NO FURTHER PROPERTY HAD BEEN LET OUT AND, THEREFORE THE TRIBUN AL OBSERVED THAT THERE COULD NOT BE ANY CASE FOR TAKING ANY FURTHER DEPOSI T. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. PAGE 3 OF 7 OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF THE RELATIONS HIP WITH THE TENANT COULD DESCRIBE THE AMOUNT IN ANY MANNER IT LIKED BUT THE REAL NATURE OF TRANSACTION HAD TO BE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE SUBSTANCE OF TRANSACT ION. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN NEED OF SUBSTANTIAL FUND F OR SETTING UP OF NEW PROJECT FOR WHICH ASSESSEE WAS LOOKING FOR FUNDS FR OM OTHER PARTIES AS PER ITS OWN SUBMISSION. THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL CONCLUDED T HAT THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM ITL INDUSTRIES LTD. WAS OBVIOUSLY IN THE NATUR E OF LOANS/ADVANCE AND IT WAS NOT DEPOSIT IN CONNECTION WITH LETTING OUT OF P REMISES. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO HELD THAT IT WAS A LOAN/ADVANCES AND NOT DEPOSIT. T HEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED BOTH THE ASPECTS I.E. WHETHER IT WAS DEP OSIT OR LOAN/ADVANCE OR WHETHER IT HAD BEEN TAKEN DURING THE COURSE OF LETT ING OF PREMISES. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT WAS A CASE OF LOAN/ADVANCE AN D NOT DEPOSIT FOR LETTING OUT OF THE PREMISES. THEREFORE, ARGUMENT OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT IT WAS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION FOR LETTING OUT THE PREMISES H AD BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND NOT ACCEPTED. WE THEREFORE DO N OT SEE ANY APPARENT MISTAKE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT IT HAD RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SEAMIST PROPERT IES PVT. LTD. (95TTJ 201) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 2(22)(E) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO DEPOSITS. THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE ALSO OBSERVE D THAT NO CASE OF TAX AVOIDANCE HAS BEEN MADE OUT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THA T IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO THERE WAS NO TAX AVOIDANCE AND, THEREFORE, PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 2(22) (E) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OT THAT THE RE IS A MISTKAE IN NON CONSIDERING THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL. 4.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE REC ORDS AND CONSIDERED MATTER CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THOUGHT THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARNG OF THE APPEAL HAD GIVEN SOME LIST OF CASES BUT HAD ARG UED THE CASE BASED ON ONLY CERTAIN JUDGMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY MENTION ED IN THE ORDER. THE SAID DECISION OF TRIBUNAL HAD NOT BEEN REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE ARGUING HE CASE. THE APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED BY TRIBUNAL ONLY ON THE BASIS OF JUDGMENT MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. PAGE 4 OF 7 REFERRED TO DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. MOREOVER, EVEN IF WE CONSIDER THE SAID DECISION OF TRIBUNAL, THERE IS NO PROPOSIT ION LAID DOWN THAT FOR APPLICATION OF SECION 2(22)(E), IT IS NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT THERE IS TAX AVOIDANCE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) BECOM E APPLICABLE IF LOAN/ADVANCE IS RECEIVED BY THE SHARE HOLDER FROM T HE COMPANY SUBJECT TO FULFILMENT OF OTHER CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE SAI D SECTION. THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR PROVING THE TAX AVOIDANCE IN ORDER TO APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22(E). THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CASE HAD HELD THAT SECTION 2(22)(E) CANNOT BE APPLIED TO A NON SHARE HOLDER OR TO DEPOS IT. IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SHARE HOLDER OF M/S. ITL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND AS REGARDS THE DEPOSITS THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IT WAS NOT A DEPOSIT BUT ONLY LOAN/ADVANCE. THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S. SEAMIST PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) HAD ALSO CONSIDERED THE CASE OF COLOURA BLE DEVICE AND OBSERVED THAT NO CASE WAS MADE OUT FOR A COLOURABLE DEVICE A ND, THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE MC DOWELL AND COMPANY VS. ITO (154 ITR 144) WERE NOT APPLICABLE. IT WAS NOWHERE H ELD BY THE TRIBUNAL NOR THERE IS ANY PROVISION TO THAT EFFECT THAT FOR APPL ICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) IT IS REQUIRED, TO BE PROVED THAT THERE WAS TAX AVOIDANCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE ON THE GROUND OF APPLICATION OF SECTION 2(22)(E) AND NOT ON THE GROUND OF A COLOURA BLE DEVICE. WE, THERFORE, SEE NO APPARENT MISTAKE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT MISTAKE IN REL ATION TO DECISION OF TRIBUNAL REGARDING LEGAL VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF T HE ASSESSMENT. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAD REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE SHARE HOLDING OF M/ S RAJAN K. LAL A COMMON SHARE HOLDER OF ITL FABRICS PVT LTD. AND ITL INDUST RIES LTD, WHICH COULD NOT BE A VALID GROUND FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT A S PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN CASE OF CIT VS. UNIVERSAL MEDICARE PVT. LTD. (324 ITR 263) ARE APPLICABLE ONL Y TO A SHARE HOLDER. THERFORE, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSME NT HAD BEEN REOPENED ON WRONG GROUND. THERE IS THUS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN UPHOLDING THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF TH E ASSESSMENT. IT HAS ALSO MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. PAGE 5 OF 7 BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS AS RECORDED AT THE TIME OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AND SUBSEQUENT KNO WLEDGE OF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY A SHARE HOLDER COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF REOPEN ING OF THE ASSESSMENT. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN CASE OF BALKRISHNA HIRALA VANI VS. ITO & OTHERS ( 321 ITR 519). IT HAS ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A SHARE HOLD ER OF ITL INDUSTRIES LTD WITH 190510 SHARES WHICH HAD BEEN DISCLOSED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE THE FINDING OF TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIALS IS NOT COVERED AND, T HEREFORE, THERE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER ON THIS ACCOUNT. 5.1 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE RECO RDS AND CONSIDERED MATTER CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT ALL THE ASPECTS POIN TED OUT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION RELATING TO THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ORDER DATE D 21.9.2012. IN PARA 2.6 TO 2.8, THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 2(22)(E) WERE APPLICABLE WHEN LOANS/ADVANCES WERE RECEIVED BY A S HARE HOLDER HAVING MORE THAN 10% SHARE HOLDING OR BY CONCERNS IN WHICH SUCH SHARE HOLDER HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THERE WAS SOME AMBIGUITY AS TO THE NAME IN WHICH DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) COULD BE ASSESSED IN CASE OF LOAN/ADVANCES RECEIVED BY A CONCERN IN WHICH SHARE HOLDER HAD SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST. THERE WERE CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF THE T RINUBAL. THIS ISSUE WAS RESOLVED BY THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUN AL IN CASE OF ACIT VS. BHOWMIK COLUR LAB LTD., (120 ITR 865). PRIOR TO THE SAID JUDGMENT THERE WERE CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF TRIBUNAL SOME OF WHIC H HELD THAT DEEMED DIVIDEND CAN BE ASSESSED IN THE NAME OF THE CONCERN RECEIVIHNG THE LOAN/ADVANCES EVEN IF IT IS NOT A SHARE HOLDER PROV IDED THERE WAS A COMMOM SHARE HOLDER IN BOTH THE CONCERNES HAVING MORE THAN 10% OF SHARE HOLDING. THE AO HAD REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON SUCH IN TEREPRETATION WHICH WAS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS AT THE RELEVANT TIME. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT AT THE TIME OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, TH ERE HAS TO BE SOME MATERIAL FOR FORMATION OF BELIEF AND IT IS NOT NECE SSARY THAT BASED ON SUCH MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. PAGE 6 OF 7 MATERIAL ADDITION SHOULD BE FINALLY MADE. THE TRIBU NAL, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THERE WAS MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO FOR FORMATION OF B ELIEF FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY DECISIONS OF SOME OF THE BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY TRIBUNAL IN DETAIL IN PARA 2.6 OF THE ORDER AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY APPARENT MISTAKE ON THIS ACC OUNT. THE TRIBUNAL HAD ALSO CONSIDERED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. IN PARA 2. 7 OF THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAD POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INVESTM ENT OF 190510 SHARES OF ITL INDUSTRIES LTD BUT IT WAS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHAT PERCENTAGE OF SHARE CAPITAL WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN M/S ITL INDUSTRIES LTD . AS THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S ITL INDUSTRIES HAD NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AO . SUCH BALANCE SHEET HAD BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY BEFORE CIT (A). MOR EOVER, THE TRIBUNAL ALSO NOTED THAT AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 147 MERE P RODUCTION BEFORE AO OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCE FROM W HICH MATERIAL EVIDENCE COULD WITH DUE DILIGENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERE D WILL NOT NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SAID SECTION. FURTHER, MERELY BECAUSE ITL INDUSTRIES LTD. WAS BEING ASSESSED IN T HE SAME CHARGE, WOULD ALSO NOT BE THE GROUND TO ARGUE THAT MATERIAL FACTS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. THESE MATERIAL FACTS HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN CASE OF ITS OWN RETURN OF INCOME WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DONE. THE T RIBUNAL, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. THERE IS, THERFORE, NO APPARENT MISTAKE ON THIS ACC OUNT ALSO. 5.2 THE ASSESSEE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION H AS ALSO MENTIONED THAT IT HAD RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. BURLOP DEALERS LTD (79 ITR 609) AND ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN CASE OF BHAVESH DEVELOPERS VS. AO AND OTHERS (329 ITR 249) WHICH HAD BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THESE JUDGMENTS HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN PARA 2.8 OF THE ORDER. ONCE THE JUDGMETNS HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS APPARENT M ISTAKE IN THE ORDER ON THE GROUND OF NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 MA NO. 46/MUM/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ARISING OUT OF ITA 7247 OF MUMBAI 2010 ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. ITL FABRICS PVT. LTD. PAGE 7 OF 7 THAT THE TRIBUNAL COULD RECTIFY ONLY PATENT AND OBV IOUS MISTAKES AND HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN DECISION. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION AND FOR THE REASONS GIVEN EARLIER WE DO NOT SEE ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRI BUNAL AND ACCORDINLGY THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE IS REJE CTED. 7. IN THE RESULT MISCEALLAENOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPERN COURT TODAY I.E 2 8 -6-2013 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) (RAJENDRA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . SK SR. P.S. DATED 28-6-2013 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, I BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI