Suryakant Dattatray Kakade, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Pune

MA 8/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6039 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR VIVEK AGGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARI KRISHAN
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 153A; 68; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE , , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / MA NO S. 08 & 09 /P U N/201 7 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS. 312 & 313 /PUN/201 3 ) / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 6 - 07 & 2007 - 08 SHRI SURYAKANT DATTATRAY KAKADE, PROP. M/S. SURYAKANT KAKADE & ASSOCIATES, 133/1B, KAKADE HOUSE, MAYUR COLONY, KOTHRUD, PUNE 411038 PAN : ABVPK5626L APPLICANT / V/S. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S HRI HARI KRISHAN REVENUE BY : DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL / DATE OF HEARING : 1 3 - 10 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 1 2 - 2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH ESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION S U/S. 254(2) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 312 & 313/PUN/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08, RESPECTIVELY DECIDED VIDE COMMON ORDER DATED 30 - 11 - 2015. 2 MA NO S. 08 & 09/PUN/2017, A.YS. 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED APPLICATION S FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE CRUX OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, (I) THE TRIBUNAL AFTER HAVING HELD THAT NO FRESH FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INVESTIGATED REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN TH E CASE S OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION REPORTED AS 374 ITR 645 (BOM.) AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. REPORTED AS 49 TAXMANN.COM 172 ; AND (II) THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL RAISED ON MERITS ASSAILING ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING THAT NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, WHEREAS, THERE WAS NO CONCESSION GIVEN BY COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE NOT TO PRESS THE GROUNDS. 3. SHRI HARI KRISHAN APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 17 OF THE ORDER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT WHERE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND , NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FURTHER CONTENTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER HAVING GIVEN A DEFINITE FINDING THAT NO FRESH FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INVESTIGA TED. REM ANDING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MERELY APPLYING THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) WOULD CAUSE PREJUDICE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COCA - COLA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VS. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR REPRESENTING INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL & ORS. REPORTED 3 MA NO S. 08 & 09/PUN/2017, A.YS. 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 AS 368 ITR 487 HAS HELD THAT WHERE THERE WAS ENOUGH MATERIAL ON RECORD ENABLING TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE ISSUES , T HE MATTER HAS TO BE DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE REMANDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED AS 165 TAXMAN 307 HAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING ITS POWERS U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT TO APPLY THE JUDGMENT OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH WHICH WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL PROCEED INGS BUT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE SAME WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN REMITTING THE ISSUE BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFTER HAVING GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT. THE LD. AR FURTHER DRAWS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I . INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SICGIL INDIA (P) LTD., 119 ITD 184 (TM) (CHENNAI); II . JIGNESH P. SHAH VS. DCIT IN ITA NOS.1553 & 3173/MUM/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03 & 2004 - 05 DECIDED ON 13 - 02 - 2015. 3.1 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUN AL HAS DISMISSED GROUND NO. 1 RAISED IN ITA NO. 312/PUN/2013 AND GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 IN ITA NO. 313/PUN/2013 ASSAILING ADDITION U/S. 68, BY OBSERVING THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY ARGUMENTS AND CONCENTRATED ON LEGAL/ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WHILE MAKING HIS SUBMISSIONS ON LEGAL/ADDITIONAL GROUND NEVER GAVE CONCESSION THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THE OTHER GROUNDS. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO AT NO POINT OF TIME GAVE ANY INDICATION THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL ON MERITS 4 MA NO S. 08 & 09/PUN/2017, A.YS. 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 WILL BE DISMISSED AS NO SUBMISSIONS ARE MADE ON GROUNDS RAISED ON MERITS OF THE ADDITION. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS FIRST SUBMISSION, IT WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIED TO DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED ASSAILING ADDITIONS MA DE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, IF THE TRIBUNAL IS RESTORING THE LEGAL GROUND TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 4 . ON THE OTHER HAND DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT T HERE IS NO FINDING GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL HAS MERELY RECORDED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR AND HAS REMITTED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PASSING THE ORDER AFRESH, IN THE LI GHT OF DECISIONS RENDERED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED IN RESTORING THE LEGAL ISSUE TO ASSESSING OFFICER, AS IT WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TRIBUNAL. WHETHER THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS TO BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS EXERCISE HAS TO BE CARRIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT MADE BLANKET REMAND. THE TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED THE LEGAL ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WITH SPEC IFIC DIRECTIONS. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF COCA - COLA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF SAID CASE WOULD NOT APPLY IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE MISCELLANE OUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5 MA NO S. 08 & 09/PUN/2017, A.YS. 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 5. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT SEEKING RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 30 - 11 - 2015 ON TWO COUNTS. THE FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE LEGAL GROUND BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE S OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CONTIN ENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA). THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE INSTEAD OF REMANDING IT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN NO NEW FACTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE INVESTIGATED. 6. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 30 - 11 - 2015 , WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC FINDING OF FACT , THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AND HAS MADE SHORT OBSERVATION ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THIS ISSUE ARE IN PARA 17 OF THE ORDER. THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS HAS FILED THE DETAILS OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS TOWARDS ADVANCES FOR SALE OF SHOPS/FLATS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S.153A R.W.S.143(3) DOES NOT SPEAK OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL THAT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H. ONLY THE ADIT HAD CONDUCTED CERTAIN POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF 4 PERSONS OUT OF THE 13 PERSONS MENTIONED BY THE AO ACCORDING TO WHICH THE PERSONS ARE HAVING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE ONLY. DESPITE HAVING BANK ACCOUNTS THEY HAVE PAID AMOUNT IN CAS H AND THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS IS DOUBTFUL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE 6 MA NO S. 08 & 09/PUN/2017, A.YS. 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 TRANSACTIONS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD GI VEN HUGE ADVANCES, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.2.30 CRORES U/S.68. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED RELIEF OF ONLY RS.7 LAKHS AND SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS.2,23,00,000/ - . IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND MURALI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS TOWARDS SALE OF FLATS/SHOPS. ALTHOUGH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MURALI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) PASSED ON 29 - 10 - 2010 WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S .143(3) R.W.S. 153A (PASSED ON 31 - 12 - 2010) THE SAME WAS NEITHER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO NOR BEFORE THE CIT(A) FOR WHICH THE AO/CIT(A) HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME. SIMILARLY, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (SUPRA) W AS PASSED AFTER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THUS, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ABOVE 2 DECISIONS AND APPLY THEIR MIND WHICH ARE BEING RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US FOR THE FIRST TIME TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. UNDER THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIR ECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE SHALL KEEP IN MIND THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSI NG CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND MURALI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA). ADDITIONAL GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS IN THE ORDER DATED 30 - 11 - 2015 CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE ORDER OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) WAS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT THE SAME WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF EITHER ASSESSING OFFICER OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO PUT FORTH THE PROPOSITION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING U/S. 153A. THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (SUPRA) W AS PASSED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ON 21 - 04 - 2015 I.E. SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF PASSING OF THE ORDER BY COMMISSIONER OF 7 MA NO S. 08 & 09/PUN/2017, A.YS. 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HA D NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST TIME H AS RAISED THIS LEGAL PLEA BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE DOCUMENTS ALREADY ON RECORD TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE AFORESAID DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CAN BE APPLIED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MISTAKE , MUCH LESS THE APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL THAT COULD BE RECTIFIED IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION NO PREJU DICE WOULD BE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESTORING THE ISSUE BACK TO ASSESSING OFFICER, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEREFORE, THE FIR ST GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 7. THE LD. AR HAS PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF COCA - COLA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L HIGH COURT HAS MADE OBSERVATIONS IN THE SAID CASE AGAINST REMANDING OF APPEAL TO ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THAT CASE. THE FACTS IN PRESENT CASE ARE ENTIRELY AT VARIANCE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE LEGAL PLEA HAS BEEN RAI SED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE TRIBUNAL. THE LEGAL PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION TO DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. THE LEGAL GROUND HAS BEEN RESTORED TO ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN LINE WITH THE DECISIO NS OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING 8 MA NO S. 08 & 09/PUN/2017, A.YS. 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 CORPORATION (SUPRA) AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MURLI AGRO PRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA). WE ARE THUS, OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE DECISION IN THE CASE O F COCA - COLA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUPRA) BEING DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CAUSE OF ASSESSEE. 8. THE SECOND GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED GROUND NO. 1 IN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 312/PUN/2013 AND GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 IN APPEAL IN ITA NO. 313/PUN/2013 FOR THE REASON THAT NO ARGUMENTS WERE MADE ON THE AFORESAID GROUND S BY THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE G AVE ANY CONCESSION , NOT TO PR ESS THE GROUND . FURTHER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL NO INDICATION WAS GIVEN BY THE BENCH THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL WILL BE DISMISSED. 9. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONS U/S. 68 ON MERITS AT TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. THE ENTIRE EMPHASIS OF THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF MAKING SUBMISSIONS WAS ON ADDITIONAL/LEGAL GROUND ONLY. THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRECLUDED TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THAT THE BENCH AT ANY POINT OF TIME RESTRICTED THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE TO CONFINE HIS SUBMISSIONS ON LEGAL/ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND THEREAFTER PROCEEDED ON TO DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED ON MERITS OF ADDITION . FURTHER , THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER HAS NO WHERE MENTIONED THAT GROUNDS RAISED IN APPEAL ASSAILING ADDITIONS ON MERITS A RE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSIONS ON THIS ACCOUNT ARE WITHOUT ANY MERIT AND 9 MA NO S. 08 & 09/PUN/2017, A.YS. 2006 - 07 & 2007 - 08 ARE THUS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO POINT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 30 - 11 - 2015, WHICH IS BEYOND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 29 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - ( / ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 29 TH DECEMBER, 2017 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - CENTRAL, PUNE 4. / THE CIT - CENTRAL, PUNE 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE . 6 . / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE