SHRI SATYA PRAKASAH GUPTA, Kanpur V. DCIT, Kanpur

MA 61/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2154 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K RAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P K SEHGAL; S C AGRAWAL S
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Assessment record
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO S . 61 & 62/LKW/2011 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO S . 639 & 580/ALLD/2000 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1996 - 97 SHRI. SATYA PRAKASH GUPTA KANPUR V. DCIT CIRCLE 2, KANPUR PAN: ABZPG5991Q (APP LIC ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP LIC ANT BY: S/SHRI. P. K. SEHGAL & S.C. AGRAWAL, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. R. K. RAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 20 0 6 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT: 25 0 7 2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: TH ESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.12.2007 IN I.T.A. NO.639 & 580/ALLD/2000 WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT APPRECIA TED THE EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT'). 2 . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE DEPARTME NT HAS CONVEYED A IMPRESSION THAT THE CREDITS WERE APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTED GIFTS AND THERE BEING NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DONOR AND DONE, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID TO BE GENUINE . W HEREAS THE FACTS ARE THAT THE CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LOANS RECEIVED FROM LENDERS AND THE PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 2 - : TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS ON WRONG ASSUMPTION OF FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGE S ITS ONUS BY PLACING EVIDNECE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE LOAN CREDITORS, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CAPACITY OF THE LENDERS, BUT IT WAS NOT APPRECIATED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, NON - APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AMOUNTS TO AN ERROR APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L, FOR WHICH RECTIFICATION IS CALLED FOR. 3 . THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL IN ITS ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAS GIVEN A SPECIFIC FINDING WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR APPARENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. D.R. HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN FACT IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL , WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT. 4 . HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCE P LACED BEFORE IT AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE TRIBUNAL HAS EXAMINED ALL NECESSARY ASPECT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA S 8 & 9 ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE: - 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT INITIAL ONUS WHICH LAY UPON THE ASSESSEE IS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE CRED ITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. WE NOTICE THAT IN SOME OF THE CASES (I) ASSESSEE FAILED TO EVEN FILE CONFIRMATION LETTERS (II) THE SIGNATURES OF THE DEPOSITORS WERE NOT TALLYING (III) CAPACITY OF THE DONORS WERE NOT PROVED AND (IV) ALL THE DEPOSIT ORS WERE STRANGERS. THE ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 3 - : THROUGH CHEQUES AND ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THESE PARTIES WITH DETAILS OF PAYMENT BY CHEQUE I.E. CHEQUE NUMBER, DATE AND AMOUNT OF CHEQUE. WE OBSERVE THAT ASSE SSEE HAS NOT ONLY FAILED TO PROVE FINANCIAL STATUS OF THE DONOR(S) BUT HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY FILED COPIES OF THE SELF MADE CONFIRMATIONS FROM FEW DONOR(S) AND HAS ALSO PLEADED THAT LOANS WERE RECE IVED BY CHEQUE(S) AND HENCE THEY SHOULD BE TREATED AS GENUINE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE ONUS LAID ON HIM, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE LOANS WERE RECEIVED FROM STRANGERS AND DONORS WERE ALSO NOT RELATED TO THE DON EE. THE ID. C.I.T (A) AT HIS OWN CONVENIENCE HAS PICKED UP THE CASES OF FEW DEPOSITORS TO JUSTIFY THE TRANSACTION SAYING THAT THE SIGNATURES WERE TALLYING WITH CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND ASSESSMENT RECORD. LIE HAS NOT LOOKED INTO THE MATTER AS A WHOLE WHETHE R ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE DEPOSITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS OR NOT. BEFORE US ALSO ASSESSEE HAS FILED SELF MADE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE FEW DONORS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE W ERE NOT GENUINE AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE AND REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE ID. C.I.T (A). HENCE GROUNDS NO 1 TO 5 TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED AND GROUNDS NO. 1 & 2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 5 . SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE LIGHT OF DETAILED SUBMISSIONS BY PASSING A REASONED ORDER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT. THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254 OF THE ACT IS LIMITED AND RECTIFICATION CAN ONLY BE CALLED FOR ON THE ERROR APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 6 . THE SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY EXAMINED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND VARIOUS HIGH COURTS PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 4 - : AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL CAN RECTIFY ONLY THOSE MISTAKES WHICH ARE ARITHMETICAL OR CLER ICAL OR APPARENT IN ITS ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER IN THE GRAB OF RECTIFICATION. I T WAS ALSO HELD THAT IF THE TRIBUNAL COMMITS AN ERROR OF JUDGEMENT, THAT ERROR CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254( 2) OF THE ACT AS THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT EMPOWERED BY THE STATUTE TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VARDHMAN SPINNING; 226 ITR 296 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAVE HELD IN SPECIFIC TERMS THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS C REATION OF STATUTES AND IT CAN EXERCISE ONLY THOSE POWERS WHICH HAVE BEEN CONFERRED UPON IT. THE ONLY POWER CONFERRED ON THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW OR MODIFY OR DERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE ACT CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH ON THE BASIS OF SUPPOSED INHERENT RIGHTS. U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AFTER HEARING THE CONTESTING PARTIES, CAN PASS SUCH ORDER AS IT DEEMS FIT. SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY EMPOWERS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF THE DATE OF AN ORDER TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT U/S 254(1) OF THE ACT WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD EITHER SUO MOTO OR ON AN APPLICATION MADE . WHAT CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION IS A MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT AND PATENT. THE MISTAKE HAS TO BE SUCH FOR WHICH NO ELABORATE REASONS OR INQUIRY IS NECESSARY. WHERE TWO OPINIONS ARE POSSIBLE, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. 7 . IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUMAN TEA AND PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES (P) LTD., 226 ITR 34 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAVE EXPRESSED SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS AFTER HOLDING THAT UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, AN ORDER, WHICH HA S BEEN PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL REACHES FINALITY THE MOMENT THE SAME IS PASSED; CANNOT BE TOUCHED THEREAFTER. BY SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED TO RECTIFY MISTAKES IN ITS ORDERS, WHICH ARE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE R ECORDS. THE PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 5 - : EXPRESSION `MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MEANS A MISTAKE EITHER CLERICAL OR GRAMMATICAL OR ARITHMETICAL OR OF LIKE NATURE, WHICH CAN BE DETECTED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY NECESSITY TO RE - ARGUE THE MATTER OR TO RE - APPRAISE THE FACT AS APPEARIN G FROM THE RECORDS. IN ANOTHER CASE CIT VS. GOLAL CHAND AGARWAL; 202 ITR 14 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAVE ALSO HELD THAT SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ITS ORDER PASSED U/S 254(1) TO RECTIFY ANY MI STAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD EITHER SUO MOTO OR ON AN APPLICATION. IF IN ITS ORDER THERE IS NO MISTAKE WHICH IS PATENT AND OBVIOUS ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD, THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION BY THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) WILL BE ILLEGAL AND IMPROPER. AN OVERSIGHT OF THE FACT CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT MISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER SECTION 254(2). THIS MIGHT, AT THE WORST, LEAD TO PERVERSITY OF THE ORDER FOR WHICH THE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT UNDER SECTION 254(2) BUT A REFERENCE PROCEEDINGS U/S 256. THE NORMAL RULE IS THAT THE REMEDY BY WAY OF REVIEW IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE AND UNLESS CLOTHED WITH SUCH POWER BY THE STATUTE, NO AUTHORITY CAN EXERCISE THE POWER. 8 . THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITAT; 143 CTR 44 6 HAS HELD THAT SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 254 CONFERS AMPLE POWERS ON THE TRIBUNAL TO PASS SUCH ORDERS IN ANY APPEAL FILED BEFORE IT AS IT THINKS FIT. SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 POSTULATES THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB - SEC. (1) OF SECTION 254 WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNAL CONFERRED BY SUB - SECTION (2) OF SECTION 254 FOR RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD CANNOT BE EXERCISED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO RECAL L ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SECTION 254(2). FURTHER, REVIEWING AND RECALLING AN ORDER IS ONE THING AND RECTIFYING A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS QUITE ANOTHER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY STATUTORY PROVISION FOR REVIEW BY TRIBUN AL, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE RECALLED OR REVIEWED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 6 - : SECTION 254 WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF M.P. IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH CHAND MEHTA VS. CIT; 220 ITR 277 IN WHICH THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE HELD THAT SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT IS VERY LIMITED AND IT IS ONLY THE APPARENT ERROR WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED. 9 . THEIR LORDSHIPS OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T.S. BALARAM ITO VS. VOLKART BROTHERS; 82 ITR 50 (SC) HAVE HEL D THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE FURTHER HELD THAT IF A STATEMENT OF ANY PERSON HAS BEEN RECORDED WITHOUT PRODUCING HIM IN THE WITNESS BOX, THE AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT ACT UPON THAT STATEMENT WITHOUT AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE AN OPP ORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE WITNESS, BUT THAT IS A MATTER NOT FOR RECTIFICATION BUT IT IS A MATTER RELATING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS TO WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL HAS GONE WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AFFIDAVIT OF A PARTICULAR PERSON AND HAS ACTED UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE SAME PERSON WHICH WAS RECORDED BY THE ITO WITHOUT BEING PERMITTED TO CROSS EXAMINE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS NOT A MATTER IN WHICH THE APPARENT ERROR IS INVOLVED BUT IT IS A MATTER MORE OF MERIT AND CANNOT BE RECTIFIED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION. THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE MAKING A RECTIFICATION WERE AGAIN EXAMINED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HERO CYCLES PVT. LTD.; 228 ITR 463 IN WHICH THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT RECTIFICATION CAN ONLY BE MADE WHEN A GLARING M ISTAKE OF FACT OR LAW COMMITTED BY THE OFFICER PASSING THE ORDER BECOMES APPARENT FROM RECORD. RECTIFICATION IS NOT POSSIBLE IF THE QUESTION IS DEBATABLE. MOREOVER, A POINT WHICH WAS NOT EXAMINED ON FACTS OR IN LAW CANNOT BE DEALT WITH AS MISTAKE APPAREN T FROM RECORD. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. ITAT; 229 ITR 651 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF PATNA HIGH COURT HAVE ALSO EXPRESSED A SIMILAR OBSERVATION AFTER HOLDING THAT SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB - SECTION PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 7 - : (1) WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING A MISTAKE FROM RECORD. HOWEVER, SECTION 254(2) DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS ORDER OR TO SIT IN APPEAL OVER ITS EARLIER ORDER. IF IT IS DONE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO AN AMENDMENT OF AN EARLIER ORDER WITH A VIEW TO REC TIFY A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, BUT IT WOULD BE AN ORDER PASSED ON REAPPRAISAL OF THE MATERIAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON A FRESH APPLICATION OF THE LEGAL POSITION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 10 . IN THE CASE OF MS. DEEKSHA SURI VS. ITAT; 232 ITR 395 THEIR LORDSHIPS OF DELHI HIGH COURT HAVE HELD IN SPECIFIC TERMS THAT THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS A CREATURE OF THE STATUTE. IT HAS NOT BEEN VESTED WITH THE REVIEW JURISDICTION BY THE STATUTE CREATING IT . THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN JUDGEMENTS OR ORDERS. THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE COURTS MAY OPEN OR VACATE THEIR JUDGEMENTS ARE GENERALLY MATTERS WHICH RENDER THE JUDGEMENT VOID OR WHICH ARE SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTES AUTHORIZING SU CH SECTIONS. THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 IS CLEAR. THE FOUNDATION FOR THE EXERCISING THE JURISDICTION IS WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD AND THE OBJECT IS ACHIEVED BY AMENDING ANY ORDER PASSED B Y IT. A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD MUST BE AN OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTAKE AND NOT SOMETHING WHICH CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY A LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS ON WHICH THERE MAY BE CONCEIVABLY TWO OPINIONS. A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE RECORD. 11 . SIMILAR VIEWS HAVE ALSO BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRAHLAD RAI TODI 251 ITR 833 BY HOLDING THAT A BARE LOOK AT SECTION 254(2) WILL SHOW THAT THIS SECTION GIVES THE POWER TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND NOT TO AMEND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT AND TO MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE ASSESSEE. SO, WHEN WE SPEAK OF PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 8 - : AMENDMENT OR RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE THE EARLIER ORDER CAN NEVER BE RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE EARLIER ORDER MUST HOLD THE FIELD AND THE MISTAKE CAN BE RECTIFIED OR AMENDED CAN BE MADE TO THE ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT, IN LAW AND FACTS, RECALL AND DESTROY ITS FINAL ORDER AS A WHOLE WITH A V IEW TO RECTIFY THE SAME ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL ACTUALLY AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF ITS EARLIER ORDER AND THAT POWER TO REVIEW IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE TRIBUNAL. 12 . BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSCIOUSLY DEA LT WITH THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE IT IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE IN DETAIL IN ITS ORDER DATED 31.12.2007 IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT, THE SAME CANNOT BE REVIEWED UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT UNDER THE GARB OF RECTIFICATION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE SAME. 13 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.7.2014. SD/ - SD/ - [ A. K. GARODIA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOU NTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 TH JU LY , 2014 JJ: 1807 PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 9 - : COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APP LIC ANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ )