TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 815X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... similar to the fact of the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal and Ors, therefore this contention of the Ld. Special Counsel for the Assessee that the ITAT omitted to take note of the submission advanced on behalf of the revenue in the impugned order was factually incorrect. In this Misc. Application the Revenue wrongly alleged that the non cognizance of the live nexus existing between the incriminating material found during the search action at various places / premises and non adjudication of the question as to what constitutes the incriminating material, the said allegation is factually incorrect. The another contention of the Department is that there was omission to take into consideration the reliance placed by the Revenue on the various decision and return a finding with regard to vital submission of the Revenue is concerned, we have already pointed out that all the submissions and the case laws relied by the Ld. Special Counsel for the revenue find place of the impugned order and after considering those submissions as well as case laws, the conclusion has been drawn by the ITAT. As already pointed out that there is no mistake apparent from the record therefore, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon'ble Tribunal The Hon'ble Bench has pronounced its order in the above matter on 07.02.2020. A copy of such order is enclosed for reference along with this application as Annexure 'A'. It is submitted by the Revenue that on perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble Bench, there are certain apparent mistakes of fact and law which deserve to be rectified u/s 254(2) of the Act. The Revenue would like to highlight these apparent mistakes as under: I. Omission to consider the submissions of Revenue with regard to the applicability of the Coordinate Bench's decision in the case of Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal others i. The Hon'ble Bench, in its order dt. 07.02.2020, passed in the cases of Shri. Sanjay Singal Smt. Aarti Singal has extensively relied on the decision in the case of Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal others in ITA 1412-1414/Del/2018. ii. This appears from Para 49 of the impugned order, running from Pages 112-127. The direction to delete the addition made is solely based on the aforesaid decision. iii. Revenue had made detailed oral submissions distinguishing the case of Sh. Sanjay Singal with that of Sh. Brij Bhushan Si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll known to the appellants. (Para 108) j. The jurisdictional High Court has held that it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case to hold whether or not the lack of cross-examination is fatal to the findings arrived at. Reference is invited to the decision of Kusum Lata Thakral, reported in 327ITR 424 at Pages 211-216 of Revenue's CLC k. The basis on which the case of Anil Kumar was distinguished in the said case is clearly absent in the case of the appellant. (Para 103) l. The presumption u/s 132(4) in the cases of SCS and RKK based on material found and their statements is that they acted as entry operators and this presumption in the case of SCS and RKK defining the real nature of their business activities is by itself enough to justify the addition in the present case of the appellant. (Para 121) The Hon'ble Tribunal has altogether omitted to take note of the aforesaid submissions and these have somehow remained to be considered. iv. In the absence of any finding by the Hon'ble Bench to the effect that the aforesaid points of distinction raised by the Revenue are not valid or these are not sufficient to make the case of Brij ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmed the basis to delete addition in this case. ix. In Para 49 of the order, the Hon'ble tribunal proceeds to rely on the decision in the case of the Coordinate Bench with a finding that the facts of the present case are identical to the facts involved in the case of Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal . This finding could not have been reached by the Hon'ble Bench if the distinguishing features pointed out by the Revenue in its oral and written submissions had been considered. The distinguishing features were elaborately detailed in sub-paras (a) to (T) of Para 6, Part B of final submissions of Revenue dt. 30th September 2019. x. This apparent mistake of omission to consider the valuable submissions of Revenue and the failure to return any finding on such submissions constitutes a mistake apparent on the face and it is therefore prayed that the same may kindly be rectified. II. No cognizance taken by the Hon'ble Tribunal to the live nexus existing between the Incriminating Material found during search actions at various places/premises i. The Revenue vide detailed written submissions dt. 30th September 2019, in Part B, Para 2 has showcased the nature and degr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lysis of the correlation of this data with other seized material appears in the Assessment Order on Pages 43-58. The primary counterparties who have bought the shares of Pranneta Industries from Singals are the companies controlled and managed by SCS. (Para 2.4 - Pase 1 0 - Assessment Order) On being confronted with evidences and statements as gathered from the search operation at the premises of entry operators (SCS associated entities), Sanjay Singal himself declared an additional income of ₹ 250 crores during the course of search u/s 132(4) and followed it by way of a disclosure letter. d. Praveen Kumar Jain (Pintu) Pintu was working in tandem with SCS and was responsible for receiving cash for SCS and remitting the same back to SCS controlled companies. He has admitted to this fact that he was in the business of providing accommodation entries and was a close affiliate of SCS. Evidence in the form of excel sheets were seized from Pintu which recorded the movement offunds through him to SCS. He prepared an account of SCS with him, an extract of which can be found in the Assessment Order on Pase 37 and the cross-checking exercise of these entries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Singals, Parrneta Industries, is nowhere whispered in the order. It is pertinent to mention that it is the name of the scrip, by which the transactions were recorded in the seized material, i.e. Kedia-2 Sheet . Deepu Cheque/Deepu , Chopra/BPSL Account and documents from Pintu. that links the unauthorised transactions between the co-conspirators including Singals. A vital point of such factual matrix is also that the transactions recorded in the seized material relating to the purchase and sale of shares of Parrneta Industries totally corelates with the trade data of Parrneta Industries received from BSE. However, the submissions in this regard seem to have been omitted from consideration. The order also does not acknowledge or consider the statements given by the directors of Parrneta Industries, that their company was being used by entry operators such as SCS to provide accommodation entries to their clients. Iv Para 38.1 of the order puts forth a list of all the connected entities that were searched by the Investigation Wing while Para 38.2 reiterates the items of incriminating material, as per the earlier submissions of the Revenue. However, the order does not consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in general. ii. The Revenue strongly pressed the following contentions: a. There is no requirement that the incriminating material cannot include what is found and seized during search at the premises of accomplices or coconspirators. b. The expression incriminating material has to be understood in its normal contextual and common-sense connotations. c. The material found from the premises of one may be relevant for making assessment in the case of the other and therefore, the expression incriminating material would include all relevant material. d. The incriminating material would also include the material which may on the face of it may or may not be incriminating but when examined along with other material found at one place or the other assumes the nature of being incriminating if these corelate. e. It is the relevance of the material to the determination of income which is necessary and not the situs or the person from whom the material is seized. f. Revenue also made reference to the decisions of Goyal Industries [(2014) 49 taxmann.com 203], Ganpati Fincap Services [(2017) 82 taxmann.com 408 (Delhi)] and Rajesh Sunderdas Vaswani [(201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... These submissions were neither raised before nor considered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal. Therefore, the Hon'ble Bench deciding the case of Sh. Sanjay Singal ought to have considered these submissions of the Revenue and returned a finding accepting or rejecting these submissions before deleting the addition by relying in the decision of the Coordinate Bench. V. Revenue submits that the omission to consider and return a finding one way or the other with regard to these vital submissions of Revenue constitutes a mistake apparent from record. The reliance by the Hon'ble Bench on the decision of the Coordinate Bench is of no avail since these vital submissions relate to facts which either did not exist before the said Bench or these represent arguments which were not pressed into service by the representative of the Revenue before the Coordinate Bench. Thus, the aforesaid submissions begged a finding, whether in favour of Revenue or against it, from the Hon'ble Bench. VI. Attention of the Hon'ble Bench is drawn to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shukla Brothers reported in (2010) 3 taxman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view. VII. In the light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that the order of the Hon'ble Bench suffers from an apparent mistake of law in not adhering to the principles set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. VIII. In view of the above, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Bench may kindly consider the above mistakes which are apparent from record and pass an appropriate order rectifying such mistake. Revenue prays that the aforesaid submissions may kindly be considered and even if these are not acceptable, these may be rejected on merits by explicit findings. 3. Ld. Special Counsel for the Department reiterated the contents of the aforesaid Misc. Application and further submitted that the facts of the present case were different from the facts involved in the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal which has been followed by the ITAT, in the said case there was no voluntarily surrender therefore, the mistake was apparent from the record. It was further submitted that the statements of the assessees under section 132(4) of the Act were recorded after considering the incriminating material, this fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case laws : T.S. Balaram, ITO Vs. Volkart Brothers Ors. (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC) Karan Co. Vs. ITAT (2002) 253 ITR 131 (Del) Express Newspapers Ltd. Vs. DCIT Anr (2010) 320 ITR 12 (Mad) CIT Vs. Bhagwati Developers (P) Ltd. (2003) 261 ITR 658 CIT Vs. Vardhman Spinning (1997) 226 ITR 296 (P H) 4.2 It was submitted that the contention of the Revenue that the ITAT in its impugned order has altogether omitted to take note of the submissions on the question of applicability of the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal Others in ITA No. 1412- 1414/Del/2018 to the present case, is factually incorrect, since the Tribunal has taken due note of and discussed the crux of the Departmental submission in para 39.3 at page 102 of the impugned order. 4.3 It was further stated that the Ld. Special Counsel tried to carve out certain dissimilarities of the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal vis a vis present case. In this regard it was submitted that the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal bears striking resemblance to the facts of the present case making the judgment so rendered was squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and that the holding of the ITAT Delhi B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties and the present assessees were not concerned either with their statements or their retraction. Therefore if at all those statements were intended to be used in evidence, the assessees were required to be offered a prior opportunity of cross examination. 4.8 It was emphasized that in the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal and others, also the impugned material was made available to the assessee therein but since the assessees were not offered any opportunity of cross examination of the third parties from whose possession control such documents were seized, such documents were held not to have any evidentiary value in the assessments framed in the case of the assessees therein. Therefore the facts of the assessee s case were identical to the facts involved in the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal and other which had been followed by the ITAT in the case of the present assessees. It was submitted that the guiding judicial principle in respect of search assessment under section 153A pursuant to serach conducted after 31/05/2003 had been laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principle CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia which had been affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.O. considered the statement of third parties as incriminating material for the purpose of making the addition in assessment made under section 153A of the Act, however no opportunity to cross examine those parties was provided to the assessee. That the Ld. CIT(A) himself admitted at page no. 176 of the impugned order that no incriminating material was found from the possession of the assessee during the course of search. 4.10 Our attention was drawn towards para 48 at page no. 112 to 126 of the order dt. 07/02/2020 and it was stated that the relevant excerpts from the order rendered in the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal and Others (supra) laying down the broad proposition of law which were found to wholly relevant to the facts of the assessee s case by the ITAT, have been reproduced in the aforesaid referred to para no. 49. It was stated that the contention of the Revenue in the MA that the valuable submissions of the Revenue with respect to the alleged non applicability of the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal and Others to the facts of the present case were altogether omitted to be taken note of in the impugned order of the ITAT, was factually incorrect. Rather the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n at para no. 48 to 51, page 110 to 127 of the impugned order. It was also stated that after discussing the totality of the facts the ITAT at para 49, pages 112 to 126 has gone on to extensively quote from the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal Ors (supra) rendered on similar facts, wherein various settled principle of law had been discussed in depth by the Coordinate Bench after discussing catena of judicial pronouncement in support of each proposition. The facts of the said case were found by the ITAT to be in close proximity to the facts of the present case, therefore, the said order of the Coordinate Bench was followed. It was submitted that since the ITAT has considered each and every aspect in broad manner therefore the contention of the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue that the submission seems to have been omitted from consideration was erroneous and misplaced. 4.13 As regards to this contention of the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue that the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act were also to be considered as incriminating material, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the ITAT had given a clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudicated by the ITAT. It was submitted that the ITAT has discussed the crux of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee at para 46 to 47.2 at page no. 108 109 and in his written submissions the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee distinguished the case laws relied by the Ld. Special Counsel for the revenue, it had been acknowledged at para no 47.2 at page no. 109 of the impugned order and after having taken an explicit note of the facts and material on record and the submissions advanced by both the sides, the ITAT had given its considered finding and decision at para 48 to 51 at page nos. 110 to 127 and held as under: It is well settled that the addition u/s 153A of the Act can only be made on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search-para 48, page110 of the impugned order. That no incriminating material was found during the course of the search actions in the case of the Assessee(s) para 48, page 110 of the impugned order. That in the present case, the A.O. made addition u/s 68 on the basis of material found in course of search actions in the cases of SCS, RKK and Pintu, however name of the Assessee was not found recorded in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Any and every document cannot be and is not an incriminating document. No addition can be made for a particular assessment year without there being an incriminating material qua that assessment year which would justify such and addition- internal para 24 of the quoted judgment at page 121 of the impugned order. No addition could be made u/s 153A where the Department culd not point out from the Panchanama any material found during the course of search which could give even remote possibilities of altering the income of the assessee based on any incriminating documents internal para 10 of the quoted judgment at page 121 of the impugned order. No addition can be made u/s 153A on the basis of statements of third parties recorded u/s 132(4) / 133A and third party evidences / documentation. Presumption u/s 132(4A)/292C of the Act is available only in the case of the person in whose possession and control the documents are found but it is not available in respect of third parties- internal para 121 of the quoted judgment at page 126 of the impugned order. That the additions made by the A.O. u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in the absence of any incri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 132(4)/133A of the Act. Therefore the contention of the Department that the said issue was not before the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal and Ors. was factually incorrect. 4.17 As regards to the allegation of the Department that the reliance placed by the special counsel for the Revenue that judgment rendered in various case laws were not considered by the ITAT. It was submitted that the ITAT had taken note of the aforesaid judgments at para 45, page 107 of the impugned order. 4.18 It was pointed out that the assessee in his rejoinder dt. 07/08/2019 differentiated the judgments relied by the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue which was taken note by the ITAT. Therefore this allegation had no footing to stand particularly when the ITAT at para 47.2 page 109 of the impugned order had given due cognizance to the fact that the Ld. Counsel for the Assessee vide his written submission distinguished all the case laws relied upon by the Ld. Special Counsel for the Revenue. 4.19 It was reiterated that there had been no failure on the part of the ITAT to consider the submissions made on behalf of the Department and the ITAT had passed a well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal and hence these mistakes deserve to be rectified. 2. These written submissions only seek to submit reply to the submissions, both oral and written, of the Learned Counsel for the assessee, particularly the written counter filed against the Miscellaneous Application of the Revenue, a copy of which has since been made available to us. 3. It is submitted with utmost respect and with all humility that these written submissions seek only to reiterate what was submitted during the course of hearing of the merit appeal. The issue in the present proceeding is a very limited one- Whether there is any mistake apparent from record in the order of Hon'ble IT AT, which deserves to be rectified. Revenue has urged that non-consideration of certain vital submissions does constitute a mistake apparent from record. 4. In the present case, the Hon'ble Bench has only given its final finding relying solely on the decision of the Coordinate Bench at Delhi in the case of Brij Bhushan Singal ors. It has reproduced some of the submissions of Revenue but when it comes to analysis and final findings, the Hon'ble Bench has not returned any finding on these vital submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the Court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher Court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may rejer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view. 6. The Hon'ble 1TAT u/s 254(2) of the Act is bestowed with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stated above, in this case we are concerned with the application under Section 254(2) of the 1961 Act. As stated above, the expression rectification of mistake from the record occurs in Section 154. It also finds place in Section 254(2). The purpose behind enactment of Section 254(2) is based on the fundamental principle that no party appearing before the Tribunal, be it an assessee or the department, should suffer on account of any mistake committed by the Tribunal. This fundamental principle has nothing to do with the inherent powers of the Tribunal. In the present case, the Tribunal in its Order dated 10-9-2003 allowing the Rectification Application has given a finding that Samtel Color Ltd.'s case (supra) was cited before it by the assessee but through oversight it had missed out the said judgment while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee on the question of admissibility/allow ability of the claim of the assessee for enhanced depreciation under Section 43A. One of the important reasons for giving the power of rectification to the Tribunal is to see that no prejudice is caused to either of the parties appearing before it by its decision based on a mistake apparen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he elimination of the error. What the effect of the elimination of the error will be on the original order will depend upon each case. It may be that the elimination of the error may affect only a part of the order. It may also be that the error may be such as may go to the root of the order and its elimination may result in the whole order falling to the ground. In our opinion the Income Tax Officer will be able to amend or correct the order to the extent to which the correction is necessary for rectification of the error and such correction may extend either to the whole of the order or only to part of it. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was right in the view that it has taken and the question raised on the reference must consequently be answered against the department. [Blue Star Engineering Co. (Bombay) (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City (18.12.1968 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/0022/1968, (1969) 73 ITR 283] iv. Under section 154, the power to rectify the error must extend to the elimination of the error, even though the error may be such as to go the root of order and its elimination may result in the whole order falling to the ground. [CIT v S.S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter without considering the unjust consequences flowing from its own order. [G. Balakrishnan Bros. P. Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1978) 41 STL 450, 454-55(Mad)] 9. The order of the Tribunal fails to consider and contradicts its own stand taken in the case of Brij Bhushan Singal others, wherein it was clearly expressed and relied upon that the case would have been different (against the assessee) if there was a voluntary disclosure in a search. On the other hand, where there is a voluntary disclosure as in the present case, the Tribunal completely ignores such fact by accepting the baseless and unworthy differentiations drawn by the appellant. The order does not give any consideration to a number of areas of differentiations drawn by the Revenue nor does it revert with any finding of why such arguments were denied or rejected. 10. The MA presents similar other mistakes of Taw' and 'fact' pointing out how the vital arguments have remained to be considered. 11. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the MA may kindly be considered, and the mistakes may kindly be suitably rectified. 6. We have considered the submissions of both the parties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue has been discussed at page no. 110 to 112 at para nos. 48 to 48.5 of the impugned order. 6.2 The another contention of the Department is that there was omission to take into consideration the reliance placed by the Revenue on the various decision and return a finding with regard to vital submission of the Revenue is concerned, we have already pointed out that all the submissions and the case laws relied by the Ld. Special Counsel for the revenue find place at page no. 94 to 108 in para 38 to 45 of the impugned order and after considering those submissions as well as case laws, the conclusion has been drawn by the ITAT. 6.3 The another contention of the Department is that the valuable submission of the Revenue with respect to the alleged non applicability of the case of Shri Brij Bhushan Singal and others in ITA No. 1412 to 1414/Delhi/2018 to the facts of the present case were all together omitted to be taken note of in the impugned order by the ITAT, is factually incorrect, since the contention of the Ld. Special Counsel for the Assessee was duly considered and thereafter it was found that the facts of the present case are similar to the facts of the case of Shri Brij Bhus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt in the case of CIT Vs. Vardhman Spinning (1997) reported in 226 ITR 296 (supra) held as under; The Appellate Tribunal is a creation of a statute and it can exercise only those powers which have been conferred upon it. The only power conferred on the Tribunal under section 254(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, is to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The jurisdiction to review or modify orders passed by the authorities under the Act cannot be inferred on the basis of a supposed inherent right. Under section 254(1) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the contesting parties, can pass such orders as it deems fit. Section 254(2) of the Act specifically empowers the Appellate Tribunal, at any time within four years of the date of an order, to amend any order passed by it under section 254(1) of the Act, with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, either suo motu or on an application made. Similar powers have been conferred under section 154 of the Act on every income-tax authority to rectify its mistakes which are apparent from the record. What can be rectified under these two sections is a mistake which is apparent and patent. The mistake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al is clothed with the power to amend with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record either on its own motion or on an application by the assessee or the Assessing Officer concerned. The law by now is well- settled. Section 254(2) does not confer a power on the Tribunal to review its earlier order. A mistake apparent from the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may be conceivably two opinions. 6.9 A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ras Bihari Bansal Vs. CIT and Another (2007) 293 ITR 365 (Delhi) wherein it has been held as under: Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, enables the concerned authority to rectify any mistake apparent from the record . It is well settled that an oversight of a fact cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under this section. Similarly, 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 mere fact that the Tribunal had not al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Apex Court in the aforesaid referred to case of Shukla Brothers and all the four preposition of judgment stands fulfilled in the impugned order of the ITAT dt. 07/02/2020 in ITA No. 706/Chd/2018 for the A.Y. 2008-09 viz; i. There is adequate clarity on thought ii. Decision has been well reasoned iii. The reason for decision have been well communicated. iv. The order is well reasoned 7.2 In the present case since all the arguments alongwith the various judicial pronouncements relied upon by both the parties, were duly considered, there exists no manifest error in the decision of the ITAT. Therefore, in view of the totality of the fact as discussed herein above, we do not see any merit in this Misc. Application moved by the Department. 8. In all other Misc. Applications i.e MA No. 32 to 36/Chd/2020 , the facts are identical and even the rival submissions were similar therefore our findings given in respect of Misc. Application No. 31/Chd/2020 shall apply mutatis mutandis for all other Misc. Applications. 9. In the result, Misc. Applications moved by the Department are dismissed. (Order pronounced in the Court on. 18/03/2021) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
