CIT(A), MUMBAI V. TLG INDIA P.LTD, MUMBAI

MA 748/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2936 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2017
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

J IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA NO. 748/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7484/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 TLG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 36, BIG APPLE DR. L. SHIRODKAR ROAD, PAREL, MUMBAI - 400012 PAN A AACC1756E V. DCIT - CIRCLE 7(3) ROOM NO. 615 , 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN M K ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 APPLICANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY MR. PERCY PARDIWALA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY MR. RAKESH RANJAN AND MR. RAJIV GUBGOTRA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 09 - 08 - 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 - 09 - 2019 ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION BEARING MA NO. 748/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7484/MUM/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 , FILED BY ASSESSEE U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961( HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) BEING AGGRIEVED BY APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED BY I NCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, K BENCH, MUMBAI ( HEREINAFTER CALLED THE TRIBUNAL) U/S 254(1) OF THE 1961 ACT IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORDS . THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED WELL REASONED DETAILED ORDER RUNNING INTO 40 PAGES WHEREIN ENTIRE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW, CONTENTIONS RAISED BY BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WERE ALL CONSIDERED AND THER EAFTER DETAILED WELL REASONED MA NO. 748/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7484/MUM/2014 2 | P A G E APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS NOW WELL SETTLED THAT SCOPE OF TRIBUNAL TO RECTIFY ITS OWN APPELLATE ORDER , WITHIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE 1961 ACT IS LIMITED TO RECTIFYING MIST AKES WHICH ARE APPARENT FROM RECORDS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWERS TO REVIEW ITS OWN DECISION WITHIN LIMITED SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE 1961 ACT. THE ASSESSEE VIDE THIS MA HAS RAISED LARGE NUMBER OF AVERMENTS AND CONTENTIONS EVEN ON MERITS OF THE ISSUE W HICH EVEN GO TO EXTENT OF HAIR SPLITTING THE ORDER BY ADOPTING TOO HYPER TECHNICAL APPROACH IN AN DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO SOMEHOW WRIGGLE OUT OF THE WELL REASONED TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 WHEREIN THE SAID ORDER COULD BE RECALLED . BEFORE WE PROCEED FUR THER, IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND CRUCIAL AT THIS STAGE TO REFER TO THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IN DEALING WITH VARIOUS AUTHORITIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT/APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION IS AY: 2009 - 10 FOR WHICH PREVIOUS YEAR WAS 2008 - 09 . THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO FILE VARIOUS AGREEMENTS IT ENTERED INTO WITH ITS CLIENTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS VERY CRUCIAL TO ADJUDICATE DISPUTE BETWEEN RIVAL PARTIES. THE TPO CONCLUDED ITS ORDER ON 29.01.2013 WHEREIN ADDITIONS WERE PROPOSED TO ARMS LENGTH PRICE BY TPO WRT INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY ASSESSEE WITH ITS AE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO FILE AGREEMENTS BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL BEFORE TRIBUNAL FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD DESPITE BEING SPECIFICALLY ASKED BY THE TRIBUNAL DURING HEARINGS BEFORE IT. THE AGREEMENT FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS DATED 24.10.2013 WHICH RELATED TO TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO DURING AY: 2014 - 15 AND HAD NO RELEVANCE TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL /ISSUES WHICH WERE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING TRIBUNAL . THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, THUS , WAS NOT ABOVE BOARD AND THERE WAS SOMETHING HIDDEN BY ASSESSEE FROM AUTHORITIES WHICH LEFT AUTHORITIES TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES BASED ON MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT PARA OF TRIBU NAL ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 IS AS UNDER: PAGE 14 OF ITAT ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 : THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS ACTING AS AGENT FOR ITS AES ASKED ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE COPIES OF AGREEMENT WITH ITS AES AND IN RESPONSE, THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 24.10.2014( WHILE THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER MA NO. 748/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7484/MUM/2014 3 | P A G E CONSIDERATION IS 2008 - 09) WITH STARCOM, CANADA. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THIS AGREEMENT DATED 24.10.2013 IS NOT RELEVANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS IT PERT AINS TO PREVIOUS YEAR 2013 - 14 WHILE THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 2008 - 09....... PAGE 18 OF ITAT ORDER DATED 16.06.2017: THE LEARNED DR AT THIS POINT OF TIME STRONGLY REPELLED THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRODUCING SERVICE AGREEMENT DATED 24 - 1 0 - 2013 WITH STARCOM WHILE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 AND THE AGREEMENT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 - 15. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SERVICE AGREEMENT IS DATED 24.10.2013 WHILE ORDER OF THE TPO IS DATED 29 - 01 - 2013 WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT WHICH IS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EVEN AFTER THE ORDER OF TPO AND HENCE NO AGR EEMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE TPO. *** THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED AT THIS POINT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECT ED BY THE BENCH TO FILE RELEVANT AGREEMENTS WITH ITS CLIENTS WHICH WERE IN FORCE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. THERE ARE MAINLY FOUR TYPES OF AGREEMENTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE NEEDED TO HAVE FILED AND SHOULD HAVE FILED BEFORE US AS DIRECTED BY US, FIRSTLY AGREEM ENT WITH ITS CLIENTS FOR MEDIA PLANNING, CONCEPTUALISATION OF ADVERTISEMENT, CREATING AND DESIGNING ART WORK, FILM SLIDES AND FINAL EDITING OF THE ADVERTISEMENT, SECONDLY AGREEMENTS WITH CLIENTS RELATED TO MEDIA BUYING FOR RELEASE OF ADVERTISEMENT WHICH WI LL ALSO ENTAIL SUBMISSION OF PURCHASE ORDERS BY CLIENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ACTUAL RELEASE OF ADVERTISEMENT ( THESE AGREEMENTS WERE FILED AS WE SEE LATER IN THIS ORDER IN THE MANNER IT WAS FILED), THIRDLY AGREEMENT WITH MEDIA HOUSES FOR PURCHASE OF ADVERTIS EMENT SLOTS , FOURTHLY AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS PROFESSIONALS , MODELS , WRITERS , DIRECTORS , LOCATION HIRE, STUDIO HIRE , PROPS, ACQUISITION ETC. FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGNING OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR CLIENTS SUCH AS FILM, ART WORK ETC. AT THE ADJOURNED HEARI NG , THE ASSESSEE FILED COMPILATION / PAPER BOOK PAGE 730 - 758 CONSISTING OF FEW AGREEMENTS OF TYPE SECOND AS ABOVE WITH CLIENTS FOR RELEASE OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND THAT TOO WITHOUT SUBMITTING ACTUAL PURCHASE ORDERS RELEASED BY CLIENTS IN ITS FAVOURS. INCID ENTALLY NONE OF THESE AGREEMENT SO FILED BEFORE THE BENCH WERE FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WERE REQUIRED BY THE BENCH AND WERE PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY AGREEMENT WITH CLIENTS FOR RELEVANT PERIOD UNDER INSTANT APPEAL WHILE FACTS AS EMANATING FROM TPSR(PAGE 66/PB) IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH ITS CLIENTS FOR MEDIA PLANNING AND MEDIA BUYING.OUR ATTENTION WAS DRA WN TO THESE AGREEMENTS WHICH WERE FILED AS PAPER BOOK/PAGE 730 - 758. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ITS AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS AGENCIES FOR BOOKING/ PURCHASING ADVERTISEMENT SLOTS DESPITE BEING ASKED BY THE BENCH NOR IT FILED AGREEMENT WITH CLIENTS FOR MEDIA PL ANNING AS WELL AGREEMENTS FOR MA NO. 748/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7484/MUM/2014 4 | P A G E EXECUTION OF MEDIA PLANNING LEADING TO DEVELOPMENT OF ADVERTISEMENT WERE NOT FILED. THE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR RELEASE OF ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED BY CLIENTS ARE ALSO NOT FILED. ..... PAGE 22 OF ITAT ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 ..... THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING ON 31 - 03 - 2017 IN PURSUANCE OF BENCH DIRECTIONS BUT AGAIN CHOSE TO WITHHOLD THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY BENCH FOR GIVING BREAK - UP OF GROSS RECEIPTS AND COST OF BILLINGS AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILED THE DETAILS O F BREAK - UP CALLED FOR. PAGE 30 - 31 OF ITAT ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE VARIOUS AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO WITH ITS CLIENTS FOR RENDERING SERVICES AS WELL WITH MEDIA HOUSES FOR PURCHASING /BOOKING SLOTS. THERE ARE MAINLY FOUR TYPES OF AGREEMENTS WHICH THE ASSESSEE NEEDED TO HAVE FILED AND SHOULD HAVE FILED BEFORE US AS DIRECTED BY US, FIRSTLY AGREEMENT WITH ITS CLIENTS FOR MEDIA PLANNING, CONCEPTUALISATION OF ADVERTISEMENT, CREATING AND DESIGNING ART WORK, FILM SLIDES AND FINAL EDITING OF THE ADVERTISEMENT, SECONDLY AGREEMENTS WITH CLIENTS RELATED TO MEDIA BUYING FOR RELEASE OF ADVERTISEMENT WHICH WILL ALSO ENTAIL SUBMISSION OF PURCHASE ORDERS BY CLIENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ACTUAL RELEASE OF ADVERTISEMENT, T HIRDLY AGREEMENT WITH MEDIA HOUSES FOR PURCHASE OF ADVERTISEMENT SLOTS , FOURTHLY AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS PROFESSIONALS , MODELS , WRITERS , DIRECTORS , LOCATION HIRE, STUDIO HIRE , PROPS, ACQUISITION ETC. FOR DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGNING OF ADVERTISEMENT FOR CLIENTS . THE ASSESSEE ONLY FILED AGREEMENTS OF TYPE SECOND AS STATED ABOVE WITH CLIENTS FOR RELEASE OF ADVERTISEMENTS AND THAT TOO WITHOUT SUBMITTING ACTUAL PURCHASE ORDERS RELEASED BY CLIENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. INCIDENTALLY NONE OF THE AGREEME NT SO SUBMITTED WAS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WERE REQUIRED BY THE BENCH AND WERE PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY AGREEMENT WITH CLIENT S FOR RELEVANT PERIOD UNDER INSTANT APPEAL WHILE FACTS AS EMANATING FROM TPSR(PAGE 66/PB) IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY ENTERED INTO AGREEMENTS WITH ITS CLIENTS FOR MEDIA PLANNING AND MEDIA BUYING.. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ITS AGREEMENTS WITH VARIOUS AGENCIE S FOR BOOKING/ PURCHASING ADVERTISEMENT SLOTS DESPITE BEING ASKED BY THE BENCH NOR IT FILED AGREEMENT WITH CLIENTS FOR MEDIA PLANNING AS WELL AGREEMENTS FOR EXECUTION OF MEDIA PLANNING LEADING TO DEVELOPMENT OF ADVERTISEMENT WERE NOT FILED. THE PURCHASE OR DERS FOR RELEASE OF ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED BY CLIENTS ARE ALSO NOT FILED. SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY ALL AUTHORITIES INCLUDING US BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN NOT TO COME FORWARD WITH RELEVANT EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT ITS OWN CON TENTIONS. THE BENCH EVEN GAVE FURTHER CHANCE TO THE ASSESSEE TO COME CLEAN AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO MA NO. 748/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7484/MUM/2014 5 | P A G E GIVEN BREAK UP OF GROSS REVENUE AND COST OF BILLINGS BUT AGAIN THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY DATED 31 - 03 - 2017 HAS CHOSEN NOT TO GIVE SPECIFIC REPLIES OF BREAK - UP O F GROSS REVENUE AND COST OF BILLINGS AND HAVE GIVEN EVASIVE REPLIES CONCERNING SOME OTHER BREAK - UP OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL EXPENSES WHICH HAS NO RELEVANCE FOR ADJUDICATING THIS APPEAL. THUS , IT IS EVIDENT THAT IT IS A WILFUL STRATEGY OF THE ASSESSEE N OT TO CO - OPERATE WITH AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE WHILE GIVING REPLY DATED 31 - 03 - 2017 IN RESPONSE TO BENCH DIRECTIONS COMPLETE EMPTY AND HOLLOW RITUALS WHILE SOUL WAS MISSING FROM THE BODY OF REPLY FILED WITH ITAT WHAT WAS SOUGHT FOR BY THE BENCH. THUS IN NU TSHELL, THE ASSESSEE IS WITHHOLDING INFORMATION AND AGREEMENTS SO REQUIRED FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES UNDER APPEAL RATHER THE STAND ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSISTENT OF NON - CO - OPERATION RIGHT FROM BEGINNING. ... ON EVEN BEING ASKED BY THE BENCH DURING THESE MA PROCEEDINGS AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUBMITTING RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES BY WAY OF AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY IT FOR TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN DURING RELEVANT PERIOD AND OTHER EVIDENCES TO PROVE/SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTIONS , T HE SIMPLE STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER IS GIVEN BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS CLEARLY TOLD TO THE BENCH DURING HEARING OF APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT NOW HAVE COPIES OF AGREEMENT WRT TRANSACTIONS WHICH IT ENTERED INTO FOR THE RELEVANT PER IOD. BUT DOES THIS SIMPLE STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWER OF NOT PRODUCING RELEVANT EVIDENCES BY WAY OF COPIES OF RELEVANT AGREEMENTS AND OTHER RELEVANT EVIDENCES DISCHARGES THE BURDEN CAST BY LAW ON ASSESSEE FOR WHICH NO REPLY WAS FORTHCOMING FROM LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ANSWER IS EMPHATIC NO. THUS, IN NUTSHELL THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CO - OPERATING WITH AUTHORITIES INCLUDING TRIBUNAL AND NOW HYPER TECHNICAL APPROACH OF HAIR SPLITTING OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 OF THE TRIBUNAL IS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS MA AND RAISING HYPER TECHN ICAL PLEAS WERE DONE TO SOMEHOW WRIGGLE OUT OF TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 BY SUCCEEDING IN SOME HOW GETTING THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL RECALLED . ONE MORE FEEBLE PLEA IS RAISED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXACTLY TOLD BY THE BENCH AS TO WHICH ALL AGREEMENTS WERE TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE BENCH AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL . THIS CLEARLY REVEALS AND DEMONSTRATE THE DESPERATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE TO SOMEHOW GET THE WELL REASONED DETAILED ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL RECALLED UNDER THE GARB OF THIS MA . MA NO. 748/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7484/MUM/2014 6 | P A G E THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THESE AGREEMENTS WERE ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE TO UNDERTAKE VARIOUS TRANSACTI ONS DURING THE IMPUGNED AY AND IN ORDER TO PROVE ITS CONTENTIONS THAT ONLY NET REVENUE IS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE COMPUTING ALP AND THE SO CALLED CLAIMED PASSED THROUGH COSTS ARE TO BE REDUCED FROM GROSS REVENUE TO ARRIVE AT NET REVENUE WHICH IS TO BE CONSI DERED FOR DETERMINING ALP , THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE RELEVANT EVIDENCES TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTIONS. THE SAID ONUS NEVER GET DISCHARGED. THE NEXT ATTEMPT IS MADE IN THIS MA TO SHOW THAT TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 WAS PASSED BEYOND 90 DAYS AND HENCE THIS ORDER NEEDED TO BE RECALLED. IT IS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AFORESAID APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED ON 25.07.2017. THE ASSESSEE CITED DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF SHIVSAGAR VEG. RESTAURANT V. ACIT (2009) 317 ITR 433 AND DECISION IN THE CASE OF OTTERS CLUB V.DIT (E) ( WP NO. 1889 OF 2016). THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN MA IN THE CASE OF CROMPTON GREAVES LIMITED V. CIT IN MA NO. 151/MUM/2016 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1994/MUM/2013, DATED 11.05.2018 WAS ALSO CITED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS MA . ON BEING CONFRONTED , THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY ACCEPTED THAT THE DAT E OF HEARING OF APPEAL WAS 20.03 .2017 AND DATE OF PRONOUN CEMENT OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS 16.06.2017 AND HENCE THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL WAS WITHIN 90 DAYS. THUS, MERELY BECAUSE THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ON 25.07.2017 , A PR ESUMPTION IS DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE OF ITS OWN THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL BEYOND 90 DAYS , WHICH LATER RIGHTLY STOOD CORRECTED BY ASSESSEE OF ITS OWN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IN MA WHEN CONFRONTED WITH FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE BY NOT PRESSING TOO FAR THIS PLEA DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH OF THIS MA . IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT FURTHER PLEAS ARE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN THIS MA APPLICATIONS ON MERITS OF THE ISSUE WHICH ARE INFACT AN ATTEMPT TO GET THE DECISION OF TH E TRIBUNAL REVIEWED WHICH IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF LIMITED MA NO. 748/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7484/MUM/2014 7 | P A G E SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) AS IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT SCOPE OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) IS LIMITED TO CORRECTING MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORDS AND THE TRIBUNAL IS DEBARRED FROM REVIEWING ITS OWN DECISION WHILE DECIDING MA. THERE IS NO NEED FOR US TO GO INTO THESE PLEAS CHALLENGING DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16.06.2017 ON MERITS OF THE ISSUES AS IT IS BEYOND LIMITED SCOPE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE 1961 ACT AS OTHERWISE IT WILL LEAD TO REVIEWING OF ITS OWN DECISION BY THE TRIBUNAL IN MA WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY MAKING AN FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO SOMEHOW GET ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL RECALLED WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WITHIN LIMITED MANDATE AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 254(2) OF THE 1961 ACT. THE ASSESSEE DEFINITELY HAS OTHER EFFECTIVE REMEDY AVAILABLE TO IT BY FILING AN APPEAL WITH HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT U/S 260A OF THE 1961 ACT WHICH IT CAN ALWAYS AVAIL IN ORDER TO REDRESS ITS GRIEVANCES. THUS, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN DISMISSING THIS MA FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS MERELY AN FEEBLE ATTEMPT BY ASSESSEE TO SOMEHOW GET WELL REASONED APPELLATE ORDER DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED BY TRIBUNAL RECALLED. THE ASSESSEE FAILS IN THIS MA. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 2 . IN THE RESULT, M.A. NO. 748 /MUM/201 7 ARISING OUT OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 7484/MUM/2014 FOR AY : 2009 - 10 FILED BY ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 4 .0 9 .2019 0 4 .0 9 .2019 S D / - S D / - ( MAHAVIR SINGH ) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 0 4 .0 9 .2019 COPY TO NISHANT VERMA SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY 1 . THE APPELLANT 2 . THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4 . THE CIT - CONCERNED, MUMBAI MA NO. 748/MUM/2017 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 7484/MUM/2014 8 | P A G E 5 . THE DR BENCH, 6 . MASTER FILE // TUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI