Parshant Dutt Chaudhary, Panchkula V. ACIT, Panchkula

MA 58/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2000 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K MUKHI
• Keywords: Retraction
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. NO.56 /CHD/2011 IN ITA NO.978 /CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 VIKRANT DUTT CHAUDHARY, VS. THE A.C.I.T., H.NO.162, SECTOR 2, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AHFPC8192B M.A. NO.57 /CHD/2011 IN ITA NO.979 /CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 VIJAY DUTT CHAUDHARY, VS. THE A.C.I.T., H.NO.162, SECTOR 2, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AHFPC8225R AND M.A. NO.58 /CHD/2011 IN ITA NO.980 /CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 PRASHANT DUTT CHAUDHARY, VS. THE A.C.I.T., H.NO.162, SECTOR 2, PANCHKULA. PANCHKULA. PAN: AFLPD8640L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI S.K.MUKHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 23.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.06.2014 2 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THESE THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE DIFFERENT APPLICANTS ARE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF TR IBUNAL DATED 29.4.2011 IN ITA NOS.978 TO 980/CHD/2009 RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2001-02. 2. THE APPLICANTS HAVE FILED THREE SEPARATE MISCEL LANEOUS APPLICATIONS AND THE ISSUES RAISED IN ALL THE MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE IDENTICAL. WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT MI SCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER BY REFERRIN G TO THE FACTS IN M.A.56/CHD/2011. 3. THE GRIEVANCES OF THE APPLICANTS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN ELABORATED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ONS VIDE GROUND NOS. A TO P AT PAGES 3 TO 10 OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATIONS AND THE FIRST OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS WAS THAT THERE W ERE NO SIGNATURES ON THE DOCUMENT RELIED ON BY THE AUTHORITIES TO MAKE T HE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS AND THE ASSESSEE NEVER ADMITTED THAT IT WAS HIS SIGNATURES ON THE ALLEGED DOCUMENT WHICH WAS THE BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. THE SECOND OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS WAS THAT EARLIER STATEMENT HAD BEEN RETRACTED AND NO RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON S UCH RETRACTED STATEMENT. THE NEXT PLEA OF THE APPLICANTS WAS TH AT AGAINST THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, REASONS RECORD ED FOR REOPENING WERE NOT GIVEN TO THE APPLICANTS AND THIS ISSUE HAD NOT BEEN DISPOSED OFF BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING HE APPEAL. ANOTHER AS PECT OF THE ARGUMENT WAS THE RELIANCE UPON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO & OTHERS [259 ITR 19(SC)] AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD FAILED TO DEAL WITH TH E SAID DECISION. 3 THEREAFTER OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE OBSERVATI ONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE 8 AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS DISCRE PANCY IN THE FIGURE THAT THE APPLICANTS HAD RECEIVED RS.39 LACS AND NOT RS.38 LACS AS MENTIONED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ANOTHER PLEA RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS WAS THAT NO CROSS EXAMINATION WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND RELIANCE PLACED UPON T HE STATEMENT WITHOUT ALLOWING CROSS EXAMINATION IS MISPLACED. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THA T EACH OF THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS WAS RUNNING IN 11 PAGES AND THIS ITSELF ESTABLISHES THAT THE SO CALLED MISTAKES POINTED OUT BY THE APPLICANTS ARE NOT APPARENT FROM RECORD. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON ITO VS. VOLKART BROTHERS & OTHERS [82 ITR 50 (SC)]. I T WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE THAT EVERY CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN VARIOUS PARAS AND OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO VARIOUS PARAS OF THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN RESPONSE TO GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO & OTHERS (SUPRA), THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE WAS TH AT THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO & OTHERS (S UPRA) WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT UNDER PARA 22 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL EAC H FACET OF THE ISSUE HAD BEEN ELABORATELY CONSIDERED AND THERE IS NO MER IT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS MOVED THE APPLICANTS. 5. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE APPLICANTS IN REJOINDE R SUBMITTED THAT AT PAGE 22 OF THE ORDER THERE WAS BLATANT MISTAKE IN T HE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WERE THAT THREE CO-OWNERS 4 I.E. TWO BROTHERS AND THEIR MOTHER HAD SOLD HOUSE N O.146, SECTOR 8-A, CHANDIGARH DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE SAI D PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR APPARENT CONSIDERATION OF RS.39 LACS IN SEPTEMB ER, 2000 IN WHICH SHARE OF EACH CO-OWNERS WAS SHOWN AT RS.13 LACS. T HE MOTHER AND TWO SONS HAD FAILED TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME WAS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT. HOWEVER, INVESTIGATI ON WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT RECEIVED TAX EVASION PETITION AND ENQUIRIES WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE THREE APPLICANTS. DURING TH E COURSE OF ENQUIRIES THE APPLICANTS WERE CONFRONTED THAT THE PHOTOCOPY O F RECEIPT DULY DATED AND SIGNED BY SMT.VIJAY DUTT CHAUDHARY AND HER TWO SONS S/SHRI PRASHANT DUTT CHAUDHARY AND VIKRANT DUTT CHAUDHARY AS WITNESSES. AS PER THE RECEIPT SUM OF RS.55 LACS WAS RECEIVED AS P ART PAYMENT TOWARDS SALE OF HOUSE OVER AND ABOVE WHICH RS.38 LACS WERE PAID SUBSEQUENTLY. THE SAID RECEIPT WAS DATED 15.9.2000 AND CARRIED SI GNATURES OF SMT.VIJAY DUTT CHAUDHARY ON THE REVENUE STAMP AFFIXED ON THE RECEIPTS AND SIGNATURES OF BOTH THE SONS AS WITNESSES. THE ISS UE ARISING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THE SALE CONSIDERATION TO BE ADOPTED I N THE HANDS OF THE APPLICANTS TO COMPUTE THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS . THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AT LENGTH BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE FACTUAL ASPECTS HAD BEEN REFERRED UNDER PARA 3 AT PAGES 2 TO 7 OF THE APPELL ATE ORDER. THEREAFTER AFTER REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE CIT (APPEALS ) AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANTS AND THE RESPONDENTS AND THER EAFTER THE ISSUE HAD BEEN ANALYZED VIDE PARAS 18 TO 31 OF THE ORDER AND THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE APPLICANTS BEFORE US. 7. THE FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE APPLICANTS BEFORE US WAS THAT THE SIGNATURES ON THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE NOT THEIRS AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE USED AGAINST THE APPLICANT. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE A NALYZING THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAD REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAS HANT DUTT CHAUDHARY 5 RECORDED ON 4.11.2003 BY THE ADIT(INV.) AND IN ANSW ER OF QUESTION NO.5 THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WAS CONFRONTED TO HIM THAT H AD HIS SIGNATURES AS WITNESS, HIS REPLY WAS YES I HAVE SEEN THIS RECEIP TS AND SIGNATURES ON THIS DOCUMENT ARE MINE WHERE I HAVE SIGNED AS A WIT NESS. HE FURTHER VERIFIED THAT THE RECEIPT HAD THE SIGNATURES OF HIS MOTHER SMT.VIJAY DUTT CHAUDHARY ON THE REVENUE STAMP AND HIS BROTHER AS A WITNESS. THE ONLY CONTENTION RAISED BY HIM THAT HE DOES NOT REMEMBER AS TO WHEN EXACTLY THE SIGNATURES WERE PUT BY HIM. HENCE THE CONTEN TION OF THE APPLICANT IS MISPLACED AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONSIDERED THE OBJ ECTION OF THE APPLICANTS AT PAGE 5 UNDER PARA 3 (IX) OF THE ORDER THAT THE SAID RECEIPT DID NOT HAVE THE SIGNATURES AND DECIDED THE ISSUE V IDE PARAS 23 ONWARDS. 8. THE NEXT OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS WAS THAT THE SAID STATEMENT HAD BEEN RETRACTED AND THAT WAS NOT TAKE N COGNIZANCE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPLICANTS WAS A LSO INCORRECT AS UNDER PARA 9 AT PAGE 11 OF THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL HAS REP RODUCED THE LETTER BY WHICH SMT.VIJAY DUTT CHAUDHARY HAD RETRACTED FROM H ER STATEMENT. THE STATEMENTS OF THE APPLICANTS WERE THEN SUMMARIZED B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN PARAS 10 AND 11 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 10. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ID. AUTHORIZED REP RESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEES, IN BRIEF, ARE: (I) THE RECEIPT O N THE BASIS OF WHICH PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 HAVE BEEN INITIATED B Y THE AO IS FORGED AND FAKE AND THEREFORE CAN NOT FORM THE BASI S FOR FORMATION OF BELIEF AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 147; (II) STATEMENTS OF SMT.VIJAY DUTT CHAUDHARY AND PRASHANT DUTT CHAUD HARY WERE FORCIBLY RECORDED BY THE ADIT (INV.) ON 4.11.2003 W HICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED BY THEM AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE AO TO ACT UPON RETRACTED STATEMENTS FOR FORMING THE BELIEF AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 147 AND FOR MAKING THE IMPU GNED ADDITIONS; AND (III) THE SALE CONSIDERATION TAKEN B Y THE AO AT RS.93 LAKHS IS INCORRECT AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE ACTUALLY RECE IVED RS.93 LAKHS AS SALE CONSIDERATION. 11. BASED ON THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, THE ID. AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE AO U/S 147/148 WERE BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE AL THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN IN PURSUANCE THEREOF INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED 6 BY THE AO SHOULD BE QUASHED. HE FURTHER CONTENDE D THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS ONLY RS.39 LAKHS AND NOT HING ELSE AND HENCE THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE SAME A T RS.93 LAKHS. 9. UNDER PARA 12 THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE APPLICA NT ON VARIOUS AUTHORITIES WERE REFERRED TO BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE REAFTER THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE ANALYZED VIDE PARA 18 AND VIDE PARA 19 TH E NATURE AND CONTENTS OF THE RECEIPT WERE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF. IN VIEW HEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS IN THIS REGARD THAT THE RETRACTION OF EARLIER STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN CONSID ERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 10. ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS WAS IN RESPECT OF THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIONS 147/148 OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARAS 20 TO 22 OF THE ORDER HAD CONSI DERED THE SAID ISSUES AND THE PLEA OF HE APPLICANTS THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAD NOT PASSED SPEAKING ORDER TO DISPOSE OFF THE OBJECTIONS TAKEN BY THE APPLICANTS AGAINST INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS, HAD BEEN DELIBER ATED UPON AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE APPLICANTS VIDE PARA 22 AT PAGE 18 OF THE ORDER THIS DECISION WAS AGAINST GROUND NO.3 RAISE D BY THE APPLICANTS AND IN VIEW OF ISSUE BEING DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS MOVED BY THE APPLICA NTS IN THIS REGARD. 11. THE NEXT OBJECTION RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS WAS AGAINST INTERPRETATION OF CONTENTS OF THE SAID RECEIPT AND THE FINDING AGAINST THE APPLICANTS. WE FIND THAT IN PARA 24 OF THE ORDER T HE TRIBUNAL ELABORATELY TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE VARIOUS FACETS OF THE SAID EVIDENCE FOUND, THE STATEMENT RECORDED AND RETRACTION OF THE SELLERS AN D STATEMENT OF THE BUYERS AND THEREAFTER DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE APPLICANTS. ONCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED ELABORATELY, WE FIND NO M ERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS MOVED BY THE APPLICANTS AGAINST THE SAME. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 19 HAD ALSO CONSIDERED THE FA CTUAL ASPECTS OF THE SAID RECEIPT WHICH WAS SIGNED BY ALL THE APPLICANTS . FURTHER IN PARA 27 7 THE TRIBUNAL HAD DEALT WITH THE ISSUES RAISED BY TH E APPLICANTS VIS--VIS THE SIGNATURES ON THE SAID RECEIPTS AND VIDE PARAS 22 TO 28 OF THE ORDER THE ISSUE DEALT IN WAS THE RETRACTION STATEMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ISSUE BEING ELABORATELY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL WE FIN D NO MERIT IN THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS IN RESPECT OF V ARIOUS FACETS OF THE SAID EVIDENCE FOUND, THE NATURE OF ENTRIES, THERE W ERE NO INDEPENDENT WITNESS AND RETRACTION OF THE APPLICANTS. 12. ANOTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS WAS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE APPLI CANTS IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO & OTHERS (SUPRA) A ND THE APPEALS OF THE APPLICANTS WERE DISMISSED. 13. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE APPLICANTS STRESSED TH AT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDE RED BEFORE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEALS. THE PERUSAL OF THE APPELLAT E FOLDER REFLECTS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVING BEEN FILED BY THE LEARNE D COUNSEL SHRI K.K.BASSI, FCA, WHO HAD ARGUED THE APPEALS BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL. IN THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RELIANCE WAS PLACED UP ON VARIOUS DECISIONS BUT NO RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON ANY RATIO LAID D OWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. I TO & OTHERS (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 12 HAD TAKEN NOTE O F THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON BY THE APPLICANTS ON VARIOUS DECISIONS AND CON SIDERED THE SAME BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. THE PERUSAL OF THE LOG BOOK OF THE RESPECTIVE DATES DOES NOT REFLECT ANY RELIANCE BEING PLACED UP ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LT D. VS. ITO & OTHERS (SUPRA). EVEN IN THE APPEAL FOLDER NO COP Y OF THE SAID JUDGMENT HAD BEEN PLACED THOUGH THE APPLICANTS HAD OTHERWISE FILED COPIES OF OTHER CASE LAWS RELIED UPON. IN THE TOTALITY OF T HE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID STAND O F THE APPLICANTS 8 BEFORE US. THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE/TO SUGGES T THAT THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL HEARIN G OF THE APPEAL AND AT THIS STAGE IT CANNOT BE OPEN TO THE APPLICANT TO GI VE NEW TWIST OR NEW TURN TO HIS CASE. IN ANY EVENT, THE APPLICANT DOE S NOT DERIVE ANY ADVANTAGE FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN GKN DRIVESHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO & OTHERS (SUPRA) B ECAUSE NOT ONLY THAT THE APPLICANT WAS DULY GIVEN THE REASONS FOR REOPEN ING THE ASSESSMENT BUT THE APPLICANT WAS ALSO HEARD ON HIS OBJECTIONS TO THE SAID REASONS. 14. IN THE INHERITED SCOPE OF THE SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE ERROR OF JUDGMENT CANNOT BE RECTIFIED, FOR THE SAID RATIO. WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CI T VS. RAMESH ELECTRIC & TRADING CO. [203 ITR 497 (BOM)]. THE HO N'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAK E APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB -SECTION (1) WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED THEREIN. IT IS AN ACCE PTED POSITION THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO R EVIEW ITS OWN ORDERS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THE ONLY POWER WHICH THE TRIBUNAL POSSESSES IS TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE IN ITS OWN ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THIS IS MERELY A POWE R OF AMENDING ITS ORDER. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTIO N 254(2) CAN BE EXERCISED ONLY WHEN THE MISTAKE WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED IS AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FRO M THE RECORD, AND NOT A MISTAKE WHICH REQUIRES TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ARGUMENTS AND A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. FAILURE OF THE T RIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR A RRIVING AT A CONCLUSION IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT, IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF RECTIFICATION, LOOK INTO SOME OTHER CI RCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION. 15. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESEN T MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS MOVED BY THE APPLICANTS AND THE SAME A RE DISMISSED. IN ANY CASE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS IN M ISCELLANEOUS 9 APPLICATIONS ARE ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE AND THE A PPLICANTS HAD FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE. 16. THE FACTS AND ISSUE RAISED BY THE APPLICANTS IN MA NOS.57 & 58/CHD/2011 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE RA ISED IN MA NO.56/CHD/2011 AND OUR DECISION IN MA NO.56/CHD/201 1 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO MA NOS.57 & 58/CHD/2011. 17. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE MISCELLANEOUS APPL ICATIONS FILED BY THE APPLICANTS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OF JUNE, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH JUNE, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH