Sh Inder Pal Singh, Jalandhar V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

MA 65/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5490 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Rectification of order; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SH.N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M. A. NO. 65/(ASR)/2014 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO. 49(ASR)/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 PAN: AGFPP8315C SH. INDER PAL SINGH, 29 LINK ROAD, JALANDHAR. VS. A.C.I.T. CC-1, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. J. S. BHASIN (ADV. ) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 05.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 12.05.2017 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY AS SESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.02.2014 IN ITA NO. 49 (ASR)/2012. 2. THE LD. AR, AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT GROUND NO. 3 TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL AND AS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER ARE NOT SIMILAR AND THEREFORE THE ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE BASED ON WRONG GROUND OF APPEAL AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTE NTION WAS INVITED TO ORDER OF TRIBUNAL AT PAGE 2, WHERE GROUND NO. 3 HAD BEEN NOTED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO ORIGINAL APPEAL AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO GROUND NO. 3 TAKEN BY ASSE SSEE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSE SSEE HAD RAISED THE MA NO. 65 (ASR)/2014 ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 49(ASR)/2012 ASST. YEAR:2005-06 2 CONTENTIONS TO CONVASS ITS CLAIM THAT THE ORDER PAS SED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BARRED BY TIME AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED WITH HON'BLE T RIBUNAL PLACED IN THE APPEAL FILE AND OUR SPECIFIC ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 2 ONWARDS OF THESE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE WAS REOPENED U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 153B READ WITH CLAUSE 2 FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF OTHER PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153C, THE LIMITATION PERIOD IS A PERIOD OF 21 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTH ORIZATION FOR SEARCH U/S 132 OR REQUISITION U/S 132A WAS EXECUTED, OR NINE M ONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED ARE HANDED OVER U/S 153C TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON, WHICH EVER IS LATER. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AC, RANGE-III, JALAND HAR WAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ASSESSEE AND SEIZED DOCUMENT/A SSETS WERE HANDED OVER TO HIM AND HE ISSUED A WRONG NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OF ASSESSEE HAD ISSUED WRONG NOTICE, THE SAME WAS FILED. IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT VIDE ORDER U/S 127 THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRANSFERRED AN D ANOTHER ASSESSING OFFICER WHO AGAIN STARTED PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS HELD THAT WRONG NOTICE ISSUED BY EARLIER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE TREATED AS HAVING NEVER BEEN ISSUED AND THEY HELD THAT PERIOD OF MA NO. 65 (ASR)/2014 ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 49(ASR)/2012 ASST. YEAR:2005-06 3 NOTICE WILL HAVE TO BE COUNTED FROM THE YEAR IN WHI CH THE DOCUMENTS WERE HANDED OVER TO ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISD ICTION U/S 127 OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TIME PERIOD FOR MAKING A SSESSMENT WAS TO EXPIRE ON 31.12.2005 OR AT THE MOST WOULD HAVE ENDE D ON 31.12.2006, WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED ON 05. 12.2017 AND THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND HENCE WAS TIME BARRED AND THE HON'BL E TRIBUNAL HAD NOT DEALT WITH THIS ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREF ORE THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AS LD. CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED IN HIS ORDER, ALL THESE FACTS AND IN WHICH THE HON'BLE ITAT DID NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 6 OF THE ORDER OF ITAT. THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE HON'B LE ITAT HAD GIVEN A WRONG DECISION, THE SAID CANNOT BE REVIEWED AS HON' BLE TRIBUNAL CAN RECTIFY ONLY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS AND THIS IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. AT THE BEST IT CAN BE SAI D A CASE WHERE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF LAW WAS MADE. 5. THE LD. AR IN HIS REJOINDER SUBMITTED THAT SECTI ON 127 DOES NOT TALK ABOUT SECTION 153C. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION ARE VERY MUCH CLEAR WHEREIN IN THE CASE OF A SEARCH ON ANY OTHER PERSON U/S 153C, THE RECORD HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING O FFICER OF THE OTHER PERSON CONCERNED AND IN THIS CASE, THE DOCUMENTS WE RE RIGHTLY HANDED MA NO. 65 (ASR)/2014 ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 49(ASR)/2012 ASST. YEAR:2005-06 4 OVER TO THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD ISS UED A NOTICE AND THEREFORE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION HAS TO BE COUNTE D FROM 30.03.2015. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS WRONGLY NOTED GROUND NO. 3 IS TRUE TO THE EXTENT THAT A PART OF GROUND NO. 3 HAS BEEN MERGED WITH GROUND NO. 4 WHICH SEEMS TO BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE. WE FIND THAT THE ARGUMENT REGARDING LIMITATION WAS TAKEN BY ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF HEARING OF APPEAL AND WHICH HAS BEEN NOTED BY HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 6. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT WITH THE SAME THOUGH IN SHORT AND HAS HELD THAT PERIOD OF LIMITATION CANNOT BE COUNTED FROM TH E DATE OF AN INVALID NOTICE ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6 ARE REPRODU CED BELOW: 6. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE TIME LIMITATION FOR P ASSING THE ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RANGE-III, JALANDHAR SHOULD BE RE CKONED FROM 30.03.2005. HE ARGUED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SE CTION 158BD ARE AKIN TO THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C AND NOTICE U/S 158BD WA S ACTUALLY INTENDED U/S 153C AND ACCORDINGLY LIMITATION TO ASSESSEE THE CASE SHOULD BE COUNTED FROM 31.05.2005. IN THIS REGARD WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A0 THAT WRONGLY ISSUED NOTICE DOES NOT VEST ANY VALID JURISDICTION WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAM E CAN BE TREATED AS HAVING NEVER BEEN ISSUED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FILLING THE NOTICE U/S 158BD VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 8.11.2006, HAS CLEARLY M ADE HIS INTENTIONS CLEAR AND THE DELAY IN INITIATING THE CORRECT PROCE EDINGS HAS NOT JEOPARDIZED THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORD INGLY THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION CANNOT BE COUNTED FROM THE DATE OF AN IN VALID NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FROM THE ABOVE FINDINGS IT IS APPARENT THAT THE HON 'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION THOUGH NOT I N ANY EXPRESS WAY AND WE DO NOT COMMENT AS TO WHETHER THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT MA NO. 65 (ASR)/2014 ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 49(ASR)/2012 ASST. YEAR:2005-06 5 OR NOT BUT WE FIND THAT ANY FINDING CONTRARY TO THI S FINDING WOULD AMOUNT TO REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. UNDER THE PROVISIONS THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY AUTHORIZED TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE WHICH IS APPARENT FROM RECORD. HERE, IT WOULD BE APT TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT PRO VISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT. A BARE LOOK AT SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT, WHICH DE ALS WITH RECTIFICATION, MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS RECTIFIABLE. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2), A MISTAKE MUST EXIST AND THE SAME MUST BE APPARENT FROM THE R ECORD. THE POWER TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE, HOWEVER, DOES NOT COVER CASES WHERE A REVISION OR REVIEW OF THE ORDER IS INTENDED. MISTAKE MEANS TO TAKE OR UNDERSTAND WRONGLY OR INACCURATELY; TO MAKE AN ERROR IN INTERP RETING, IT IS AN ERROR; A FAULT, A MISUNDERSTANDING, A MISCONCEPTION. APPARE NT MEANS VISIBLE; CAPABLE OF BEING SEEN; EASILY SEEN; OBVIOUS; PLAIN, A MISTAKE WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254(2) IS ONE WHICH IS PATE NT, WHICH IS OBVIOUS AND WHOSE DISCOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT ON ARGUMENT OR ELA BORATION. THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 254(2) IS PERMISSIBLE WHER E IT IS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THERE IS ANY MISTAKE AP PARENT FROM THE RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMENDMENT OF AN ORDER DOES NOT MEA N OBLITERATION OF THE ORDER ORIGINALLY PASSED AND ITS SUBSTITUTION BY A N EW ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2). FURTHER, WHERE AN ERROR IS FAR FROM SELF EVIDENT, IT CEASES TO BE AN APPARE NT ERROR. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT A MISTAKE CAPABLE OF BEING RECTIFIED UNDER SEC TION 254(2) IS NOT CONFINED TO CLERICAL OR ARITHMETICAL MISTAKES. ON T HE OTHER HAND, IT DOES NOT COVER ANY MISTAKE WHICH MAY BE DISCOVERED BY A COMP LICATED PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION, ARGUMENT OR PROOF. AS OBSERVED BY TH E SUPREME COURT IN MASTER CONSTRUCTION CO. (P) LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA [1966] 17 STC 360, AN ERROR WHICH IS APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD S HOULD BE ONE WHICH IS NOT AN ERROR WHICH DEPENDS FOR ITS DISCOVERY ON ELA BORATE ARGUMENTS ON QUESTIONS OF FACT OR LAW. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO E XPRESSED IN SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN HEDGE V. MALLIKARJUN BHAV ANAPPA TIRUMALE AIR 1960 SC 137. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE LANGUAG E USED IN ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 IS DIFF ERENT FROM THE LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. POWER IS GIVEN T O VARIOUS AUTHORITIES TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IS U NDOUBTEDLY NOT MORE THAN THAT OF THE HIGH COURT TO ENTERTAIN A WRIT PET ITION ON THE BASIS OF AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. MISTAKE IS AN ORDINARY WORD, BUT IN TAXATION LAWS, IT HAS A SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE. IT IS NOT AN ARITHMETICAL OR CLERICAL ERROR ALONE THAT COMES WITHIN ITS PURVIEW. IT COMPREHENDS ERRORS WHICH, AFTER A JUDICIOUS PROBE INTO THE RECORD FROM WHICH IT IS SUPPOSED TO EMANATE, ARE DISCERNED. THE WORD MISTAKE IS INHER ENTLY INDEFINITE IN SCOPE, AS WHAT MAY BE A MISTAKE FOR ONE MAY NOT BE ONE FOR ANOTHER. IT IS MA NO. 65 (ASR)/2014 ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 49(ASR)/2012 ASST. YEAR:2005-06 6 MOSTLY SUBJECTIVE AND THE DIVIDING LINE IN BORDER A REAS IS THIN AND INDISCERNIBLE. IT IS SOMETHING WHICH A DULY AND JUD ICIOUSLY INSTRUCTED MIND CAN FIND OUT FROM THE RECORD. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT T HE POWER TO RECTIFY UNDER SECTION 254(2) IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT IF THERE IS MER ELY A MISTAKE IN THE ORDERS SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. THE MISTAKE TO BE RECTIFIED MUST BE ONE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. A DECISION ON THE DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW OR UNDISPUTED QUESTION OF FACT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE WORD APPARENT IS THAT IT MUST BE S OMETHING WHICH APPEARS TO BE SO EX FACIE AND IT IS IN CAPABLE OF A RGUMENT OR DEBATE. IT IS THEREFORE, FOLLOWS THAT A DECISION ON A DEBATABLE P OINT OF LAW OR FACT OR FAILURE TO APPLY THE LAW TO A SET OF FACTS WHICH RE MAINS TO BE INVESTIGATED CANNOT BE CORRECTED BY WAY OF RECTIFICATION. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KA RAN CHAND THAPAR & BR. P. LTD., 176 ITR 535 HAS HELD AS UNDER : IT IS EQUALLY WELL SETTLED THAT THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TO BE SCRUTINIZED SENTENCE BY SENTENCE MERELY TO FIND OUT WHETHER ALL FACTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL OR WHETHER S OME INCIDENTAL FACT WHICH APPEARS ON THE RECORD HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS JUDGMENT. IF THE COURT, ON A FAIR READING OF THE JU DGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, FINDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT M ATERIAL AND HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ANY IRRELEVANT MATERIAL IN BASING ITS CONCLUSIONS, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT LIABLE TO BE INTERFERED WITH , UNLESS, OF COURSE, THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE PERVERSE . IT IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO STATE IN IT S JUDGMENT SPECIFICALLY OR IN EXPRESS WORDS THAT IT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CU MULATIVE EFFECT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR HAS CONSIDERED THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, AS IF THAT WERE A MAGIC FORMULA; IF THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOW S THAT IT HAS, IN FACT, DONE SO, THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE D ECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL. SIMILARLY, THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DECISIONS IN T.C.(A) NO. 156 OF 2006 DATED 21.08.2007 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TAMIL NADU SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. WHE N THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY DECIDED AN ISSUE BY APPLYING ITS MIND AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE RECTIFIED UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF T HE ACT. THERE WAS NO NECESSITY WHATSOEVER ON THE PART OF THE TRIBUNAL TO REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER. EVEN AFTER THE EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE COULD NOT FIND A SINGLE REASON IN THE WHOLE ORDER AS TO HOW T HE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED AND FOR WHAT REASONS. THERE IS NO APPARENT ERROR ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD AND THEREBY THE TRIBUNAL SAT AS AN APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY OVER ITS OWN ORDER. MA NO. 65 (ASR)/2014 ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 49(ASR)/2012 ASST. YEAR:2005-06 7 IT IS COMPLETELY IMPERMISSIBLE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS TRAVELED OUT OF ITS JURISDICTION TO ALLOW A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IN T HE NAKE OF REVIEWING ITS OWN ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION , THE TRIBUNAL REVIEWED ITS EARLIER ORDER AND ALLOWED THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIO N WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE REHEARING OF THE APPEAL FOR A FRESH DISPOSAL AND DO ING SO, WOULD OBLITERATE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE POWER TO RECTIFY MISTAK ES AND POWER TO REVIEW THE ORDER MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 254(2) IS LIMITED AND NARROW. IT IS RESTRIC TED TO RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. RECALLING THE OR DER OBVIOUSLY WOULD MEAN PASSING OF A FRESH ORDER. RECALLING OF THE ORDER IS SNOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER SE C. 254(2) OF THE ACT. ONLY GLARING AND ANY MISTAKE APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD ALONE CAN BE RECTIFIED AND HENCE ANYTHING DEBATABLE CANNOT BE A SUBJECT MATTER OF RECTIFICATION. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT JUDGMENT ON T HE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) AS REPORTED IN THE CASE OF RAS BIHARI BANSAL VS. CIT 293 ITR 365 HAS HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 254 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ENABLES T HE CONCERNED AUTHORITY TO RECTIFY ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT AN OVERSIGHT OF A FACT CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN APPARENT M ISTAKE RECTIFIABLE UNDER THIS SECTION. SIMILARLY, FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSI ON IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT. THE MERE FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT ALLOWED A DEDUCTION, EVEN IF THE CONCLUSION IS WRONG, WILL BE NO GROUND FOR MOVING AN APPLICATI ON UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IN THE GARB OF AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO REOPEN AND RE-ARGUE THE WHOLE MATTER, WHICH IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE SECTION. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, AND IN THE LIGHT OF RATIO OF THE DECISIONS CITED AND DI SCUSSION AS ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE APPLICATION OF ASSESS EE AND DISMISS THE SAME BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. MA NO. 65 (ASR)/2014 ARISING OUT OF IT A NO. 49(ASR)/2012 ASST. YEAR:2005-06 8 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.05. 2017. SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 12/05/2017 GP/SR./PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER