1 MA NO.64/KOL/2016 SHALIMAR FLOORS., AY 2008-09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M. BALAGAN ESH, AM] M.A. NO. 64/KOL/2016 IN I.T.A NO. 145/KOL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WD-49(3), KOLKATA. VS. M/S. S HALIMAR FLOORS (PAN: AAMFS4467K) ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 09.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.01.2017 FOR THE APPLICANT: SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL. C IT, DR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOC ATE ORDER PER SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT FOR RECTIFICATION OF ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 145/KOL/2012 DATE D 16/05/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE REVENUE HAD FILED A VERY DETAILED MISC. APPL ICATION COMPRISING OF 8 PAGES POINTING OUT THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE CASH VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THAT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT IN VIEW OF CONSIDERATION OF WRONG SET OF VOUCHERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL A PARTICULAR DECISION WAS TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL SETTING ASIDE TH E ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO GRIEVAN CE THAT COULD BE AVAILABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE FOR THE REVENUE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE T RIBUNAL HAD ONLY SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE VOUCHERS MADE IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF 14 PARTIES AS MENTIONED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE IT WITH A DIRECTION THAT IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE PAYMENTS AS RECORDED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT ARE TALLYING WITH CA SH BOOK THEN NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE COMPUTER STATEMENT WHICH ARE NOT HAVING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. THE LD. AR ALSO ARGUED THAT IF AT ALL TH E REVENUE HAS GOT ANY GRIEVANCE WITH REGARD TO WRONG FILING OF VOUCHERS BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL IT SHOULD HAVE DRAWN THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL HEARING OF THE AP PEAL ITSELF. ADMITTEDLY, THE REVENUE HAD LEFT OVER THE SAME AND THEY CANNOT RAISE THE SAID I SSUE IN MA PROCEEDINGS AFTER A FAIR 2 MA NO.64/KOL/2016 SHALIMAR FLOORS., AY 2008-09 DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THIS TRIBUNAL BA SED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HENCE, HE ARGUED THAT THE MISC. APPLICATION DESERVE S TO BE DISMISSED AS THE SAME WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE AMBIT OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECOR D FALLING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT T HE MAIN POINT OF THE REVENUES MISC. APPLICATION IS ONLY ON THE DIFFERENT SET OF VOUCHER S PRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHEN COMPARED TO THE SET OF VOUCHERS THAT WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO. THIS ONLY REMAINS AN ALLEGATION AS WE ARE NOT ABLE TO CONCLUD E FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DIFFERENT SET O F VOUCHERS BEFORE US WHILE ADJUDICATING THIS ISSUE AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS. WE FIND LOT OF FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR THAT THE ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES ON THE VOUCHERS, IF ANY, SHOULD HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND THAT THE SAME CANNOT BE DONE IN M.A PROCEEDINGS AS IT WOULD NOT C ONSTITUTE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN TERMS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE MISC. PETITION OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4. IN THE RESULT, MISC. PETITION OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 27.01.2017 SD/- SD/- (N. V. VASUDEVAN) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED : 27 TH JANUARY, 2017 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT ITO, WARD-49(3), KOLKATA. 2 RESPONDENT M/S. SHALIMAR FLOORS, 932A/51, JESSORE ROAD, KOLKATA-700 055 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .