IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM Miscellaneous Application Nos.126 TO 129 Mum 2016 (Arising out of ITA No .1417 TO 1420 Mum 2010) ( Assessment Year : 2002-03 TO 2005-06) ACIT, CC-11, Mumbai Vs. Shri Brijesh D. Shah, A-602, Ekta Milan, Devki Nagar, Eksar Village, Borivali (W), Mumbai . . PAN GIR No. : AAJPS 5346 J Revenue by : Smt. Surabhi Sharma Assessee by : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan Date of Hearing : 16 09 2016 Date of Pronouncement : 16 09 2016 ORDER PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M.) : These miscellaneous applications filed by revenue arose out of ITA Nos.1417 to 1420 Mum 2010, order dated 3-2-2016, for assessment years 2002-03 to 2005-06. 2. Through these miscellaneous applications revenue contended that there is mistake apparent in order of Tribunal dated 3-2- 2016, insofar as Tribunal have not considered judicial pronouncements cited by ld. DR during course of hearing. It was also submitted that provisions of Sec.153A 153C are machinery provisions and it should be literary interpreted and not harmoniously so that such interpretation should not defeat basic objective of promulgation of charge by Act as enunciated by Hon ble Finance Minister in provision of Finance Bill 2003 (Budget Speech) and CBDT Circular No.7 of 2003 dtd.05.09.2003. 2 MA Nos.126-129 16 3. We had carefully gone through miscellaneous applications filed by revenue as well as order of Tribunal dated 3-2-2016, wherein Tribunal have dealt with all judicial pronouncements referred by ld. AR in its para Nos.12, 13 & 14. observations of Tribunal are as under :- 12. On other hand, Ld. D.R. vehemently argued that during course of search, it was gathered that assessee had obtained artificial capital gain by way of share transaction of various stock companies. He further contended that director of such company had also admitted in his statement that they have issued bogus accommodation bills for facilitating capital gain to ultimate beneficiaries and for which they have not handed over bills to beneficiaries. Reliance was placed on decision of Hon ble Kerala High Court in case of O. Abdul Razak 350 ITR 71 wherein it was held that where addition was made by AO on basis of clear admission made by assessee for statement recorded under section 132(4) and assessee having not proved any threat or coercion and further having failed to prove amount shown in documents were only payments made, Tribunal was held to be not right in deleting additions. Reliance was also placed on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Mukundray K. Shah 290 ITR 433 wherein it was held that diary seized during search was revealing that company in which assessee had substantial interest and which had accumulated profits, advanced monies to closely related partnership firms in which also assessee was partner which amounts were withdrawn by assessee and utilized for purchase of RBI Bonds, it was held that amount was advanced for benefit of assessee by using two forms as conduces and said amount was rightly assessed as deemed dividend in hands of assessee in block assessment. 13. Reliance was also placed on decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Rubber Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. 88 ITD 95 wherein it was held that onus of proof that commission paid was genuine, assessee should miserably failed to demonstrate that services were rendered to it and failed to discharge onus, therefore not entitled to deduction to commission paid. Reliance was also placed on decision of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. in support of proposition that intimation under section 143(1)(a) cannot be treated order by issuing and there being no issue under section 143(1)(a), question of change of opinion does not arise. Ld. D.R. also relied on decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Calcutta Knitwears 43 taxman.com 446, Sujit Singh Chavra order dated 25.10.96. 14. Ld. D.R. also has drawn our attention to budget speech of Finance Minister explaining provisions of Finance Bill, 2003 and also Departmental Circular No.7 of 2003 dated 3 MA Nos.126-129 16 05.09.2003 wherein it was stated that AO shall reassess total income of each of six assessment years. Assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within period of six assessment years pending on date of initiation of search under 132 or requisition under section 132A as case may be shall abate. 4. Ld. DR fairly conceded that Tribunal have considered various judicial pronouncements referred during course of hearing. 5. We also found that in para No.15, Tribunal precisely written that it had deliberated on judicial pronouncements referred by lower authorities in their respective orders as well as cited by ld. AR and ld. DR during course of hearing. Under these facts and circumstances, we do not find any mistake much less apparent mistake in order of Tribunal. 6. In result, all miscellaneous applications filed by revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on this 16 09 2016 Sd - Sd - AMARJIT SINGH R.C.SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 16 09 2016 . . pkm, . PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3. ( ) CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. , , DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. True Copy BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar) , ITAT, Mumbai ACIT, CC-11, Mumbai v. Brijesh D. Shah