Sri Bhaskar Contractors Company, Vijayawada V. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Vijayawada

MA 8/VIZ/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8518 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Assessee Lawyers: P V SUBBA RAO
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Depreciation
• Section: 40A(3); 264; 254(2); 44AB; 13; 22

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (THROUGH WEB - BASED VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM) , . . , BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M .A. NO S . 0 7 /VIZ/202 0 & 08/VIZ/2020 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A NO S .1 09 /VIZ/201 3 & 432/VIZ/2017 RESPECTIVELY ) ( / A SSESSMENT Y EAR S : 20 08 - 09 & 2012 - 13 ) SRI BHASKAR CONTRACTORS COMPANY D.NO.60 - 3 - 27, FLAT NO.101 SAI ANEKENTH APARTMENTS 5 ROUTE NO.BUS ROAD ITI BUS STOP, ASHOK NAGAR VIJAYAWADA [PAN : AAQFS5687P ] VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 3( 1 ) VIJAYAWADA ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.V.SUBBA RAO, AR / RESPONDENT BY : S MT.SUMAN MALIK , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 25 . 0 6 .202 1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 .0 8 . 202 1 / O R D E R P ER D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS (M.A.) AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ITA NO.109/VIZ/2013 & CO NO.70/VIZ/2013 DATED 04.10.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2008 - 09 AND ITA NO.432/VGIZ/2017 DATED 04.10.2019 FOR THE A.Y.2012 - 13. 2 N .A. NO . 07 /VIZ/202 0 AND M. A NO. 08 /VIZ/20 20 , A.Y.20 08 - 09 & 2012 - 13 M/S SRI BHASKAR CONTRACTORS COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2008 - 09 AND 2012 - 13 AND THE DETAILS OF RETURNS OF INC OME FILED AND THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED ON TOTAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO), ASSESSMENT YEAR WISE IS AS UNDER : A.Y. RETURNED INCOME (RS.) ASSESSED INCOME (RS.) 2008 - 09 1,32,59,750/ - 5,28,13,310/ - 2012 - 13 2,86,38,480/ - 4,82,26,310/ - THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] AND THE LD.CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE ORDER S OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE ASSESSEE FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE PARTLY THUS DISPOSED OF BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE R EVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, THE ASSESSEE FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, ORIGINALLY ON 17.03.2 020, STATING THAT THE ITAT HAS DIRECTED FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME @12.5% , FOLLOWING THE COMPARABLE CASE OF KNR CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., HYDERABAD AND THERE ARE OTHER JUDGEMENTS, WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAD ADOPTED THE LESSER PERCENTAGE OF INCOME, THEREFORE REQUESTED TO RECALL THE ORDER UNDER RULE 27 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES AND RECONSIDER THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT LESSER PERCENTAGE THAN WHAT WAS ADOPTED BY 3 N .A. NO . 07 /VIZ/202 0 AND M. A NO. 08 /VIZ/20 20 , A.Y.20 08 - 09 & 2012 - 13 M/S SRI BHASKAR CONTRACTORS COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 04.10.2019. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 06.05.2021, THE ASSESSEE FILED PETITION STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S GONE FOR COMPROMIS E UNDER DIRECT TAX VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME (DTVVS) AND PAID THE RESULTANT TAXES IN FULL . THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE FORM NO.3 AND 5 UNDER DTVVS AND REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION. PENDING DISPOSAL OF M.A. , FOR WITHDRAWAL OF M.A. DATED 06.05.2021, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ONE MORE LETTER DATED 07.05.2021, STATING THAT THOUGH THE HONBLE PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAD ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION UNDER VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME, THE ASSESSEE INTENDS TO CONTINUE THE LITIGATION, THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO ADMIT THE M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED ONE MORE LETTER DATED 19.05.2021 REQUESTING TO ADJUDICATE THE M.A.. THE CRUX OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE VARIOUS LETTERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT INSPITE OF COMPROMISE UNDER VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME, ASSESSEE INTENDS TO CONTINUE THE LITIGATION, THEREFORE REQUESTED TO ADJUDICATE THE M.A. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF ASSESSEE S CONTENTION IN M.A. IS THAT THE ITAT HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME @12.5% ON MAIN CONTRACTS AND 5% ON SUB CONTRACTS BEFORE DEPRECIATION, INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO 4 N .A. NO . 07 /VIZ/202 0 AND M. A NO. 08 /VIZ/20 20 , A.Y.20 08 - 09 & 2012 - 13 M/S SRI BHASKAR CONTRACTORS COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA RECALL THE ORDER AND REDUCE THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME @ 11% INSTEAD OF 12.5% TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN ITS M.A. AND REQUESTED TO RECALL THE ORDER AND REVISE THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME TO @11% O F GROSS RECEIPTS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT HAD CONSIDERED THE ISSUES IN ITS DETAILED ORDER AND FAIRLY GIVEN THE RULING FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME @12.5% ON MAIN CONTRACTS AND 5% ON SUB CONTRACTS BEFORE DEPRECIATION, INTERES T AND REMUNERATION PAID TO THE PARTNERS, HENCE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED TO DISMISS THE M.A. OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE H AVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS. THE TRIBUNAL CONSIDERED THE ISSUES AND FACTS IN DETAIL IN ITS ORDER IN PARA NO.6 TO 7 IN PAGE NO.17 TO 22 AND GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND HENCE CONSIDERED THAT THE CASE IS FIT FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATION OF INCOME. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE 5 N .A. NO . 07 /VIZ/202 0 AND M. A NO. 08 /VIZ/20 20 , A.Y.20 08 - 09 & 2012 - 13 M/S SRI BHASKAR CONTRACTORS COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA TAKING BASIS FROM COMPARABLE CASE OF M/S KNR CONSTRUCTIONS OF ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH, HELD THAT ESTIMATION OF INCOME @12.5% IS FAIR AND REASONABLE, ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO DETERMI NE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 AND 2012 - 13. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE, WE EXTRACT PARA NO.7 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH READS AS UNDER : 7. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT WHICH THE AO DID NOT EXAMINE. THE ARGUMENT MADE BY THE LD.AR WAS INCORRECT AS VERIFIED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). IN LD.CIT(A) ORDER PAGE NO. 16, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE AO SUBM ITTED THE REMAND REPORT. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE VOUCHERS, BILLS IN SUPPORT OF JOURNAL ENTRIES FOR EXPENSES. ORIGINALLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IN WHICH THERE WAS HUGE VARIA TION IN THE AUDITED P&L ACCOUNT, IN RESPECT OF CHIPS, OIL AND LUBRICANTS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE PAYMENT OF PCL FOR SUPPLY OF CHIPS AS PER THE STOCK REGISTERS. IN RESPECT OF RAGHAVA & CO. ALSO THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE AND THERE WAS NO CLARITY WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENT WHETHER FOR SUPPLY OF CHIPS OR OIL AND LUBRICANTS OR FOR SUB CONTRACT WORKS. THE ASSESSEE FREELY MAKING PAYMENTS IN CASH AND CAMOUFLAGING THE PAYMENTS THROUGH CHEQUES. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED THE BEARE R CHEQUES AND THE PAYMENT WAS MADE OTHERWISE THAN CROSSED CHEQUE, THE SAME WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS CASH PAYMENTS. BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO STATED THAT ON 16.09.2 010, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE STATED TO HAVE PRODUCED THE VOUCHERS AS PER THEIR LETTER, IT HAS NOT PRODUCED THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDRESSED LETTER TO LD.CIT AND STATED THAT ORIGINAL VOUCHERS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED WHICH IS A DRAW BACK IN ANY CONTRACTORS CA SES, WHO EXECUTE THE CIVIL WORKS AT SITES. SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE STATEMENT ON 20.12.2010, THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE FIRM STATED THAT NO VOUCHERS ARE MAINTAINED FOR DAY TO DAY TRANSACTIONS. ON 29.12.2010 ALSO THE ASSESSEE FIRM CONTENDED THAT PUCCA VOUCHERS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED SINCE THE VOUCHERS WERE SELF MADE. THOUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT, THE CA NEVER CLARIFIED REGARDING THE AVAILABILITY AND MAINTENANCE OF VOUCHERS. FROM THE LD.CIT(A) ORDER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HIMSELF HAS STATED IN LETTER IN PAGE NO.9, THAT IT HAS MADE PAYMENTS IN CASH TO LABOUR 6 N .A. NO . 07 /VIZ/202 0 AND M. A NO. 08 /VIZ/20 20 , A.Y.20 08 - 09 & 2012 - 13 M/S SRI BHASKAR CONTRACTORS COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA SUPPLIER, OILS AND LUBRICANTS, DUST AND CHIPS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) AND WRONGLY GROUPED THE SUM OF RS.1,50,00,000/ - UNDER CHIPS INSTEAD OF LABOUR CHARGES IN L ETTER DATED 29.12.2010. PUCCA VOUCHERS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FOR LABOUR, LOADING AND UNLOADING OF EARTH WORK, CHIPS ETC. ONLY KACHHA VOUCHERS FOR CHIPS WERE MAINTAINED. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF 40A(3) SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS TO MAKE PURCHASES FROM UNORGANI ZED SECTOR AND THE SUPPLIER DID NOT ISSUE THE PUCCA VOUCHERS. PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL VOUCHERS ARE NOT PRACTICABLE AND POSSIBLE IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATION OF INCOME REASONABLY. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT WAS NOT PROPERLY GROUPED AND SUPPORTED BY PUCCA VOUCHERS. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING ALSO, THE LD.AR DID NOT PLACE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ARGUMENTS. THE LD.AR REQUESTED TO SEND THE CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED EVEN THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATION OF INCOME. THEREFORE, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE AND BASIS FROM KNR CONSTRUCTIONS OF ITAT HYDERAB AD BENCH, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEES CASE IS FIT CASE FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME @12.5% ON MAIN CONTRACTS AND 5% ON SUB CONTRACTS BEFORE DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS. ACCORDINGLY, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO ESTIMA TE THE INCOME @12.5% BEFORE DEPRECIATION, INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS. HOWEVER, THE INCOME AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT BE LESS THAN THE RETURNED INCOME OR SHOULD NOT BE LESS THAN THE INCOME ARRIVED AT AS PER THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR MORE THAN THE ASSESSED INCOME . 6.1. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE TRUE AND CORRECT INCOME CANNOT BE DETERMINED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATE THE INCOME. THERE WERE SO MANY ISSUES WHICH WERE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, SUCH AS DEDUCTION U/S 40 (A)(IA) , 40A(3) PAYMENT , PAYMENTS MADE TO VARIOUS OTHER SUPPLIERS SUCH AS PLC, M/S RAGHAVA & CO., ETC. WHICH WERE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RATE OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME DEPENDS ON THE FACTS AND 7 N .A. NO . 07 /VIZ/202 0 AND M. A NO. 08 /VIZ/20 20 , A.Y.20 08 - 09 & 2012 - 13 M/S SRI BHASKAR CONTRACTORS COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE AND THE SAME CANNOT BE APPLIED UNIFORMLY IN ALL THE CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS ISSUES, ITAT VIEWED THAT ESTIMATION OF INCOME @12.5% IS REASONABLE. ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH IN KNR CONSTRUCTIONS AND IN KRISHNA MOHAN CONSTRUCTIONS CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME @12.5%. TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN CONSISTENT VIEW FOR ESTIMATION OF INCOME RANGI NG FROM 9% TO 12.5% DEPENDING ON THE FACTS AND MERITS OF EACH CASE. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE , THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ESTIMATING THE INCOME @12.5% BEFORE DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST ON REMUNERATION PAID TO THE PARTNERS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION ANY DEFECT OR MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER AND WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUESTING THROUGH THE M.A. IS REVISION OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S 254( 2) OF THE A CT. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - II. V. MARUTI INSURANCE DISTRIBUTION SERVICES LTD, [2012] 26 TAXMANN.COM 68 (DELHI ) HAS CONSIDERED THE SCOPE OF AMENDMENT U/S 254(2) AND HELD THAT POWER TO RECTIFY AN ORDER, UNDER SECTION254 ( 2 ) IS EXTREMELY LIMITED AND IT DOES NOT EXTEND TO CORRECTING ERRORS OF LAW , OR RE - APPRECIATING FACTUAL FINDINGS BECAUSE SUCH RE - APPRECIATION LEGITIMATELY FALLS IN SPHERE OF FURTHER APPEAL . SIMILA RLY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT , MUMBAI HAS CONS IDERED THE SCOPE OF SECTION 8 N .A. NO . 07 /VIZ/202 0 AND M. A NO. 08 /VIZ/20 20 , A.Y.20 08 - 09 & 2012 - 13 M/S SRI BHASKAR CONTRACTORS COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA 254(2) AND HELD THAT REVIEW IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION U/S 254(2) IN SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY. V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, [2012] 20 TAXMANN.COM 264 (MUMBAI) . FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AND CONVENIENCE WE, EXTRACT THE RELEVANT PA RT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT, MUMBAI . 13. THE SCOPE OF POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER S. 254(2) IS WELL - SETTLED. THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER S. 254(2) IS CONFINED TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE INHERENT POWER OF RECTIFICATION OR REVIEW OR REVISION. UNLESS THERE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE SENSE OF PATENT, OBVIOUS, CLEAR ERROR OR MISTAKE, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT RECALL ITS PREVIOUS ORDER. IF THE ERROR OR MISTAKE IS ONE W HICH COULD BE ESTABLISHED ONLY BY LONG - DRAWN ARGUMENTS OR BY WAY OF PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION AND RESEARCH, IT IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. UNLESS THERE IS MANIFEST ERRORS WHICH ARE OBVIOUS, CLEAR AND SELF - EVIDENT, THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT RECALL I TS PREVIOUS ORDER IN AN ATTEMPT TO REWRITE THE SAME. FAILURE OF THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER AN ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY EITHER PARTY FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION IS NOT AN ERROR APPARENT ON THE RECORD, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT IN EXERCISE OF ITS POWER OF RECTIFICATION LOOK INTO SOME OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH WOULD SUPPORT OR NOT SUPPORT ITS CONCLUSION. THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT REDECIDE THE MATTER AND IT HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO RECTIFY A DECISION ON DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW. THE TRIBUNAL DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REVIEW ITS OWN DECISION EXCEPT WHAT IS AUTHORISED UNDER S. 254(2). A DECISION ON DEBATABLE POINT OF LAW IS NOT A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD. 14. THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH TRIBUN AL CAN EXERCISE POWERS UNDER S. 254(2) ARE WHERE THE TRIBUNAL HAS OVERLOOKED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN SUCH A CASE IT WOULD BE AN ERROR APPARENT FROM RECORD WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. WHERE A MATERI AL FACT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN LOST SIGHT OF, THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE POWER TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE SO COMMITTED; PROVIDED THE MATERIAL FACT HAS AN IMPORTANT BEARING ON THE ULTIMATE DECISION. IN THE PRESENT CASE BOTH THE AFORESAID SITUA TIONS DO NOT EXIST. SINCE , WE HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE ISSUES, WE, FIND NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AND THERE IS NO REASON 9 N .A. NO . 07 /VIZ/202 0 AND M. A NO. 08 /VIZ/20 20 , A.Y.20 08 - 09 & 2012 - 13 M/S SRI BHASKAR CONTRACTORS COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER ALREADY PASSED. HENCE, THE M.AS. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH AUGUST , 2021. SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( . . ) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) (D.S.SUNDER SINGH) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 18 .0 8 .2021 L.RAMA, SPS 10 N .A. NO . 07 /VIZ/202 0 AND M. A NO. 08 /VIZ/20 20 , A.Y.20 08 - 09 & 2012 - 13 M/S SRI BHASKAR CONTRACTORS COMPANY, VIJAYAWADA / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1 . / THE ASSESSEE - SRI BHASKAR CONTRACTORS COMPANY, D.NO.60 - 3 - 27, FLAT NO.101, SAI ANEKENTH APARTMENTS, 5 ROUTE NO.BUS ROAD, ITI BUS STOP, ASHOK NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA 2 . / THE REVENUE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 3(1) VIJAYAWADA 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , VIJAYAWADA 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VIJAYAWADA 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM