Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd., Kishangarh vs Acit, Ajmer on 2 April, 2018
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@MA No.131/JP/2017
(Arising out of ITA No. 922/JP/2013)
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10
M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd., cuke The ACIT,
201, RIICO Industrial Road, Vs. Circle-1,
Madanganj Kishangarh Ajmer
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCA5204A
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
vk;dj vihy la-@MA No.132/JP/2017
(Arising out of ITA No. 923/JP/2013)
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10
M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd., cuke The ACIT,
Jaipur Bye-pass Road, RIICO, Vs. Circle-1,
Industrial Road, Madanganj, Ajmer
Kishangarh.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCJ3147P
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
s Assessee by : Shri K. C. Mundra (CA)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri R. A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 05/01/2018
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 02/04/2018
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. 2 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer These are two miscellaneous applications which have been filed by the respective assessees against the consolidated order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 922/JP/2013 and ITA No. 923/JP/2013 dated 06.09.2017. Both these misc. applications were heard together and are disposed off by this consolidated order.
2. In its Misc. Application no. 131/JP/2017 filed by the assessee company u/s 254(2) of the Act, it is submitted that there are a number of apparent mistakes which require rectification and thereafter it has been stated that the complete order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench may be recalled. We therefore refer to each of the apparent mistakes as pointed out by the assessee company in its misc. application to determine whether these are mistakes apparent from the record and whether all these mistakes taken together result in a situation where the order passed by the Coordinate Bench needs to be recalled.
3. In Point No. 1 of the misc. application, it has been stated that while deciding the ground No. 1, binding provisions of section 120(5) and 124(4) of the Act could not be considered or could not be rightly appreciated by the Bench. Further in Point No. 2, it is submitted that part of the written submission dated 10.12.2015 in support of Ground No. 1 could not be considered by the Bench by mistake.
3.1 On perusal of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, it is observed that from Para No. 3 at page 4 till Para No. 13 at page 16, the Bench has discussed exhaustively the 1st Ground of appeal taking into consideration the various contention raised by the ld. AR during the course of hearing and also the written submissions which have been 3 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer filed in support of the said contentions along with provisions of section 124 of the Act. Therefore, we find that there is no mistake apparent from the order as pointed out by the assessee company.
4. In Point No. 3 of the misc. application, the assessee company has submitted that Ground No. 2 wherein it has been stated that "A team of I.T. Officials including un-empowered officials / persons conducted survey against the appellant company in very unlawful manner and entire survey proceeding was carried out in completely unlawful manner with fabrication and forgery..............." remained materially out of consideration by mistake as the additional evidences (Revenue's Paper Book Page No. 10, 11 and 12) were considered and accepted at par but without considering and comparing the Appellant's paper-book page No. 35/3 in which 16 persons shown to be carried out the survey proceedings as against authorized 9 officials (Revenue's Paper Book page No. 12).
4.1 We find that the above-said fact regarding the authorized officials of the survey has been duly taken into consideration as submitted by the assessee in its written submission which are reproduced at Para 15 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and after taking the same into consideration, the Coordinate Bench has decided at Para 18 that the survey proceedings were duly approved and duly authorized officers have carried out the survey proceedings. Therefore, we find that there is no mistake apparent from the record.
5. In Point No. 4 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para 2 of the order, the sentence and/or words," Both these appeals involved identical facts and grounds " were written / typed by 4 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer mistake as the facts of ground No. 1 of both the appeals were not identical. Further, in Point No. 5 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para 2 of the order, the sentence and/or words, "With the consent of both parties, ITA No. 92/JP/13 relating to M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd was taken as the lead case at the start of the hearing"
were written /typed by mistake because appellant never consented for first ground as identical and appellant always submitted written paper books and written submissions separately for both appeals.
5.1 We find that on reviewing the grounds of appeal in both these appeals which were heard together, the ground no. 1 is exactly identically worded and drafted by the respective assessee's companies in their respective grounds of appeal where the question of jurisdiction u/s 124 has been challenged in both the cases. Further, on reading of Para 2 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench as well as respective grounds of appeal, there is no scope of any mistake or ambiguity and it is crystal clear that both these appeals were heard together which involve identical facts and grounds of appeal and in particular, ground no. 1 and during the course of hearing, matter relating to Anupam Marbles was taken as the lead case with the consent of the both the parties and the ld AR raised his contentions regarding M/s Anupam Marbles and thereafter submitted that under identical facts and circumstances, the additions have been made in case of M/s Jain and Jain Stones and his contentions so raised in the context of M/s Anupam Marbles may be equally considered in case of M/s Jain and Jain Stones. And the said understanding of the Bench has been clearly reflected in Para 2 of the order. Therefore, we donot find that there is any mistake apparent from the records which calls for rectification.5 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017
M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer
6. In Point no. 6 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in para 2 of the order, the sentence and/or words." With the consent of both parties, ITA No. 92/JP/13 relating to M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd was taken as the lead case at the start of the hearing" were written / typed by mistake because the ITA No.92/JP/13 is incorrect number.
6.1 We find that it is a typographical mistake, the correct ITA No. in case of M/s Anupam Marbles is 922/JP/13 and ITA No. 922/JP/13 should be read instead of ITA No.92/JP/13.
7. In Point no. 7 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para-6 of the order (page No. 7), the sentences / words," The case was selected under scrutiny according to CASS (copy enclosed Annexure-2). According to the guidelines of the CBDT, the notices u/s 143(2) are to be issued in the case selected through CASS, having PAN with AO (copy enclosed Annexure-B). This is a regular process for issuing notices in cases of CASS selected scrutiny............(Annexure-c)"
were affirmed by apparent mistake as appellant's case was not selected for scrutiny through CASS.
7.1 We find that in Para 6 of the order, the findings of the CIT(A) have been reproduced and thereafter, the findings of the Coordinate Bench are contained at Para 7 of the order wherein it has been stated that case of the assessee was selected through manual basis. There is thus no mistake apparent from the order of the Coordinate Bench.
8. In Point no. 8 of the misc. application, it has been stated that as mentioned in the para-18 (on page No. 23 of the order), page No. 12 of Revenue's Paper book produced as Additional Evidence was considered by mistake as it was neither produced before the appellant nor application was filed u/rule 29 nor any reason was recorded u/rule 29 6 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer by the Hon'ble Bench. More ever, it is apparently fabricated documents prepared after survey proceeding bearing no inward / outward dispatch number and office stamp.
8.1 We have gone through Para 18 of the order of the Coordinate Bench which refers to communication between ITO, Kishangarh and Add CIT, Range-1, Ajmer seeking authorization and subsequent approval for carrying out the survey. These communications are part of the assessment records and the same cannot be termed as additional evidence. In any case, in the order of the Coordinate Bench, it has been stated clearly that the said authorization was served on the Director Shri Ashok Kumar Bohra on 18.2.2009 and his signatures were obtained at the time of the survey. Therefore, the assessee company cannot raise this ground now that these are additional evidences which were neither shared with the assessee company. Further, there is nothing on record that these official communications are fabricated documents as so claimed by the assessee company. We therefore, donot find any mistake apparent from the record in this regard.
9. In Point no. 9 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para-36 at page No.50, "In ITA No. 923/JP/13, the facts of the case are exactly identical wherein the survey was conducted at the business premises of M/s Jain & Jain /Stones Pvt Ltd and the statement of the directors who happened to be the directors of M/s Anupam Marbles were recorded. ............... Hence, our findings and directions in ITA No. 922/JP/13 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this matter as well" as all the facts of both the cases are neither the same nor it was agreed and submitted by the appellant-applicant.
7 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer 9.1 We have gone through Para 2 and Para 36 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and as we have noted above as well, there is a clear understanding as conveyed by assessee and which find clear reflection in the order passed by the Coordinate Bench that the facts of the both the cases are exactly identical and the same were agreed and submitted by both the parties. In light of the same, there is no mistake apparent from record.
10. In Point no. 10 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para-19 at page No. 24 relevant to Ground No. 2, "Besides, the statement in this case, as we have noted in subsequent paragraphs, is one of the evidences being relied upon by the AO and as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and is not the sole evidence in the instant case " was written/ typed by mistake as none of evidence was noted in subsequent paragraphs relevant to ground No. 2 and remaining evidences (if any) were also no where dealt with against the appellant by the Hon'ble bench.
10.1 We have gone through the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and we find that the findings given in Para 19 refers to subsequent discussions and findings regarding other evidences gathered during the course of suvey which are discussed in Para 30 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench. We therefore donot find any mistake apparent from the record.
11. In Point no. 11 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para-33 of the order at page No.49 "para 6.5 was written and typed by mistake as no para 6.5 was noted above in the order as mentioned.
11.1 We have gone through the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and reference to para 6.5 is of the order of the ld CIT(A) which is 8 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer reproduced at page 38 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and hence, the same should be read as Para 6.5 of order of the ld CIT(A) noted above.
12. In Point no. 12 of the misc. application, it has been stated that by mistake, various material evidences and documents in paper book and Additional Paper Book could not be considered by the Bench. And in Point no. 13 of the misc. applications, it has been stated that by mistake, certain material arguments in written submission could not be considered by the Bench.
12.1 We have gone through the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and we find that the Coordinate Bench has duly considered all the contentions raised by the ld AR during the course of hearing, the written submissions, and the evidences in support of the contentions and written submissions and has thereafter passed a speaking order disposing each of the grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal.
13. Before parting, we may add that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to the extent of rectifying the mistake apparent from the record and once a view has been taken based on appreciation of material brought on record and contentions so advanced, there is no scope for revisiting or review of the order already passed by the Coordinate Bench. In the instant case, as we have noted above, on review of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and other material available on record, we donot think there is any mistake which is apparent from record except for certain typographical mistakes which we have noted above. Thus, we donot think there is any basis for recall of the order so passed by the Coordinate Bench.
9 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer
14. In the result, the misc. application filed by the assessee company is disposed off with above directions.
MA No. 132/JP/201315. In its Misc. Application no. 132/JP/2017 filed by the assessee company u/s 254(2) of the Act, it is submitted that there are a number of apparent mistakes which require rectification and thereafter it has been stated that the complete order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench may be recalled. We therefore refer to each of the apparent mistakes as pointed out by the assessee company in its application to determine whether these are mistakes apparent from the record and whether all these mistakes result in a situation where the order passed by the Coordinate Bench call for a recall of the order.
16. In point no.1 of the misc. application, it has been stated that the entire ground No. 1 as mentioned in appeal order at page No. 3, "Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) erred in rejecting the ground relating to the jurisdiction as assessment order was passed without lawful jurisdiction and without getting the question of jurisdiction decided u/s 124" remained out of consideration by mistake treating it identical to facts of ground No. 1 of other Appeal of M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd. whereas facts of this ground was not identical to appeal No. 923/JP/2013 and thus, ground No. 1 was not decided at all by the Hon'ble ITAT by mistake. In point no. 2 of the misc. application, it has been stated that the additional written submission dated 10.04.2017 (almost relating to ground No. 1), could not be considered by Hon'ble Bench by mistake.
16.1 We find that on reviewing the grounds of appeal in both these appeals which were heard together, the ground no. 1 is identically 10 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer worded and drafted by the respective assessee's companies in their respective grounds of appeal where the question of jurisdiction u/s 124 has been challenged in both the cases. Further, on reading of Para 2 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench as well as respective grounds of appeal, there is no scope of any mistake or ambiguity and it is crystal clear that both these appeals were heard together which involve identical facts and grounds of appeal and in particular, ground no. 1 and during the course of hearing, matter relating to Anupam Marbles was taken as the lead case with the consent of the both the parties and the ld AR raised his contentions regarding M/s Anupam Marbles and thereafter submitted that under identical facts and circumstances, the additions have been made in case of M/s Jain and Jain Stones and his contentions so raised in the context of M/s Anupam Marbles may be equally considered in case of M/s Jain and Jain Stones. And the said understanding of the Bench has been clearly reflected in Para 2 of the order. Therefore, we donot find that there is any mistake apparent from the records which calls for rectification.
17. In point no. 3 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in Ground No. 2 as mentioned in appeal order at page No. 3," A team of I.T. Officials including un-empowered officials / persons conducted survey against the appellant company in very unlawful manner and entire survey proceeding was carried out in completely unlawful manner with fabrication and forgery..............." remained materially out of consideration by mistake as the additional evidences (Revenue's Paper Book Page No. 10, 11 and 12) were considered and accepted AT PAR but without considering and comparing the Appellant's paper-book page No. 35/3 in which 16 persons shown to be carried out the survey 11 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer proceedings as against authorized 9 officials (Revenue's Paper Book page No. 12).
17.1 We find that the above-said fact has been duly taken into consideration as submitted by the assessee in its written submission which are reproduced at Para 15 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and after taking the same into consideration, the Coordinate Bench has decided at Para 18 that the survey proceedings have been duly approved and duly authorized officers have carried out the survey proceedings. Therefore, we find that there is no mistake apparent from the record.
18. In point no.4 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para 2 of the order, the sentence and/or words," Both these appeals involved identical facts and grounds " were written / typed by mistake as the facts of ground No. 1 of both the appeals were not identical. In point no. 5 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para 2 of the order, the sentence and/or words, "With the consent of both parties, ITA No. 92/JP/13 relating to M/s Anupam Morbles Pvt. Ltd was taken as the lead case at the start of the hearing"
were written /typed by mistake because appellant never consented for first ground as identical and appellant always submitted written paper books and written submissions separately for both appeals.
18.1 We find that on reviewing the grounds of appeal in both these appeals which were heard together, the ground no. 1 is exactly identically worded and drafted by the respective assessee's companies in their respective grounds of appeal where the question of jurisdiction u/s 124 has been challenged in both the cases. Further, on reading of Para 2 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench as well as 12 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer respective grounds of appeal, it is crystal clear and there is no scope of any mistake or ambiguity that both these appeals were heard together which involve identical facts and grounds of appeal and in particular, ground no. 1. Therefore, there is no mistake apparent from the records which calls for rectification.
19. In point no.6 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para 2 of the order, the sentence and/or words." With the consent of both parties, ITA No. 92/JP/13 relating to M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd was taken as the lead case at the start of the hearing" were written / typed by mistake because the ITA No.92/JP/13 is incorrect number.
19.1 We find that it is a typographical mistake, the correct ITA No. in case of M/s Anupam Marbles is 922/JP/13 and ITA No. 922/JP/13 should be read instead of ITA No.92/JP/13.
20. In point no.7 of the misc. application, it has been stated that as mentioned in the para-18 (on page No. 22 of the order), page No. 10 and 11 of Revenue's Paper book (in case of ITA 922/JP/13) produced as Additional Evidence was considered by mistake as it was neither produced before CIT(A) and the appellant nor application was filed u/rule 29 nor any reason was recorded u/rule 29 by the Hon'ble bench. More ever, it is apparently fabricated documents prepared after survey proceeding bearing no inward / outward dispatch number and office stamp. In point no.8 of the misc. application, it has been stated that as mentioned in the para-18 (on page No. 23 of the order), Page No. 12 of Revenue's Paper book produced as Additional Evidence was considered by mistake as it was neither produced before the appellant nor application was filed u/rule 29 nor any reason was recorded u/rule 29 by the Hon'ble bench More ever, it is apparently fabricated documents 13 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer prepared after survey proceeding bearing no inward / outward dispatch number and office stamp. More ever such authorization is not applicable in this appeal No.923/JP/13 and therefore, it was considered in this appeal by mistake.
20.1 We have gone through Para 18 of the order of the Coordinate Bench which refer to communication between ITO, Kishangarh and Add CIT, Range-1, Ajmer seeking authorization and subsequent approval for carrying out the survey. These communications are part of the assessment records and the same cannot be termed as additional evidence. In any case, in the order of the Coordinate Bench, it has been stated clearly that the said authorization was served on the Director Shri Ashok Kumar Bohra on 18.2.2009 and his signatures were obtained at the time of the survey. Therefore, the assessee company cannot raise this ground now that these are additional evidences which were neither shared with the assessee company. Further, there is nothing on record that these official communications are fabricated documents as so claimed by the assessee company. We therefore, donot find any mistake apparent from the record in this regard.
21. In point no.9 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para 30 at page No. 43, "It is no doubt true that the statement recorded during the survey proceedings has no evidentiary value of it own but where such statement is supported with crediable verifiable evidence in form of diary found during the course of survey where the entries were found recorded with clear names and amount relating to the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources in the name of bogus entries were recorded, Excess and unreconciled inventory of cash and stock were found, then in such a a situation, the statement 14 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer recorded during the course of survey coupled with these credible evidence can definitely form the basis for making the additions in the hands of the assessee." was mentioned by mistake because-
(A) No clear names and amounts were found / seen written in the alleged Telephone Diary.
(B) Entries in alleged Telephone Diary are totally conspired, forged and fabricated which were just covered through unreliable and fabricated statements.
(C) Inventories of Cash and Stocks were self prepared and created by the ITD officials only and therefore, these inventories are not credible and verifiable evidence.
(D) Even in ITA No. 111, 112, 227 and 228/JU/2013 dated 06.08.2013 (mentioned at page No.32) and in many more cases, self prepared and created Inventories of Cash and Stocks (by the ITD) were never treated as piece of evidence as these were not found during the survey proceedings.
21.1 We have gone through Para 30 of the order of the Coordinate Bench and find that the Coordinate Bench has given a categorical findings regarding crediable evidence in form of diary found during he course of survey where entries were recorded with clear names and amount relating to income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Once the said piece of evidence has been considered and finding thereof has been given by the Coordinate Bench, the assessee cannot plead to reexamine the said evidence under section 254(2) of the Act.
22. In point no.10 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para-36 at page No.50, "In ITA No. 923/JP/13, the facts of the case 15 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer are exactly identical wherein the survey was conducted at the business premises of M/s Jain & Join Stones Pvt. Ltd and the statement of the directors who happened to be the directors of M/s Anupam Marbles were recorded. ......Hence, our findings and directions in ITA No.922/JP/13 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this matter as well" as all the facts of both the cases are neither the same nor it was agreed and submitted by the appellant-applicant.
22.1 We have gone through Para 2 and Para 36 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and as we have noted above as well, there is a clear mention that the facts of the both the cases are exactly identical and the same were agreed and submitted by both the parties. In light of the same, there is no mistake apparent from record.
23. In point no.11 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para-19 at page No. 24 relevant to Ground No. 2, "Besides, the statement in this case, as we have noted in subsequent paragraphs, is one of the evidences being relied upon by the AO and as confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and is not the sole evidence in the instant case" was written / typed by mistake as none of evidence was in subsequent paragraphs relevant to ground No. 2 and remaining evidences (if any) were also nowhere dealt with against the appellant by the Hon'ble Bench.
23.1 We have gone through the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and we find that the findings given in Para 19 refers to subsequent discussions and findings regarding other evidences gathered during the course of suvey which are discussed in Para 30 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench. We therefore donot find any mistake apparent from the record.
16 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer
24. In point no.12 of the misc. application, it has been stated that in the para-33 of the order at page No.49, "para 6.5 was written and typed by mistake as no para 6.5 was noted above in the order as mentioned.
24.1 We have gone through the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and reference to para 6.5 is of the order of the ld CIT(A) which is reproduced at page 38 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and hence, the same should be read as Para 6.5 of order of the ld CIT(A) noted above.
25. In point no.13 of the misc. application, it has been stated that by mistake various material evidences and documents in paper book could not be considered by the Hon'ble Bench. In point no.14 of the misc. application, it has been stated that by mistake, certain material arguments in written submission could not be considered by the Hon'ble Bench.
25.1 We have gone through the order passed by the Coordinate Bench and we find that the Coordinate Bench has duly considered all the contentions raised by the ld AR during the course of hearing, the written submissions and the evidences in support of the contentions and written submissions and has thereafter passed a speaking order disposing each of the grounds raised by the assessee in its appeal.
26. Before parting, we may add that the scope of section 254(2) is limited to the extent of rectifying the mistake apparent from the record and once a view has been taken based on appreciation of material brought on record and contentions so advanced, there is no scope for revisiting or review of the order already passed by the Coordinate Bench. In the instant case, as we have noted above, on review of the 17 M.A. No. 131 & 132/JP/2017 M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd & M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Ajmer order passed by the Coordinate Bench and other material available on record, we donot think there is any mistake which is apparent from record except for certain typographical mistakes which we have noted above. Thus, we donot think there is any basis for recall of the order so passed by the Coordinate Bench.
27. In the result, the misc. application filed by the assessee company is disposed off with above directions.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/04/2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼fot; ikWy jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½
(Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 02/04/2018
*Ganesh Kr
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s Anupam Marbles Pvt. Ltd.& M/s Jain & Jain Stones Pvt. Ltd.,
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Ajmer
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur.
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { M.A. No. 131/JP/2017} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar