IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM M.A. No. 20/JP/2016 Arising out if ITA No. 526/JP/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09. Shri Hitesh Koolwal, cuke Income Tax Officer, Koolwal Bhawan, Ward No. 10, Vs. Ward 2(4), Bhukhmariyon Ka Mohalla, Chomu, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h PAN No. AJEPK 3541 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate) Revenue by : Shri Raghuvir Singh Dagur (Addl. CIT) Date of Hearing : 02.09.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 16/09/2016. ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. assessee has filed this Miscellaneous Application seeking recalling of Tribunal s order dated 13.11.2015 passed in ITA No. 526/JP/2014. 2. ld. Counsel for assessee reiterated submissions as are made in Miscellaneous Application and submitted that there is mistake apparent from order dated 13.11.2015. 3. On contrary, ld. D/R submitted that if prayer of assessee is allowed, it would amount to review of order of Tribunal which was decided on merit. assessee has not pointed out any mistake apparent from record. 2 MA 20/JP/2016 Shri Hitesh Koolwal 4. We have heard rival contentions, perused material available on record. submission of assessee as made in Miscellaneous Application are as under :- above mentioned appeal have been decided by Hon ble Bench vide their order dated 13.11.2015. order passed by Hon ble ITAT reveals that submissions of assessee have remained unconsidered due to inadvertence as discussed below. order therefore requires to be recalled. only issue involved in appeal is regarding additions of Rs. 2,11,000/- u/s 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961 being unexplained deposits in bank. Hon ble ITAT has observed as under :- (i) No convincing reason has been given to controvert rejection of additional evidence filed before learned CIT (A). (ii) assessee has failed to explain cash deposited in bank. In this regard it is submitted that assessee submitted confirmations in respect of deposits in bank in two stages. Firstly details of PAN number and confirmation were filed in respect of deposits to extent of Rs 1,43,500/- before learned Assessing Officer itself which he miserably failed to consider. This fact was also brought to notice of Hon ble ITRAT through paper book submitted on 03.02.2015. This paper book included papers and confirmation submitted before learned Assessing Officer. Secondly confirmation to extent of Rs. 46,000/- were submi6tted before Hon ble CIT (A) with plea that confirmations in respect of these could not be submitted before learned Assessing Officer as depositors belong to small villages and it took time to obtain confirmations from them, whereas learned Assessing Officer did not allow further opportunities. In view of this learned CIT (A) was requested to admit such confirmation as additional evidence. This fact was also brought to notice of Hon ble ITAT by paper submitted under paper book filed on 03.02.2015. As these papers have remained unconsidered which has resulted in, miscarriage of justice. Hon ble ITAT is most humbly requested to recall order for considering evidences filed before it. Hon ble ITAT has also erred in observing that assessee has failed to explain cash deposited in bank. (para 2.5 of order). It is submitted that assessee has furnished confirmations containing complete address and PAN. Further amount of deposits is very small. In view of this assessee has discharged his onus and therefore deposits were required to be treated as unexplained. 3 MA 20/JP/2016 Shri Hitesh Koolwal In circumstances assessee has fully explained deposits to extent of Rs. 1,89,500/- (1436500+ 46000). Therefore, additions deserved deletion. Therefore, I pray that in interest of justice kindly restore appeal and oblige. However, we find that Tribunal vide para 2.5 of its order, which is sought to be recalled, has observed as under :- 2.5. I have heard rival contentions and perused materials available on record. I find merit in arguments of ld. DR that assessee was non-cooperative before AO which is mentioned in observations reproduced above. Since no convincing reasons have been advanced to controvert rejection of additional evidence by ld. CIT (A), this plea of assessee cannot be entertained. Besides, assessee has failed to explain cash deposit in bank account for payment of share loss transactions. Since assessee has failed to discharge his burden as to cash deposit in bank account, ld. CIT (A) has given proper reasons on merits for upholding addition made by AO. In view thereof, I find no infirmity in order of ld. CIT (A) which is upheld. Thus appeal of assessee is dismissed. Since Tribunal has applied its mind and decided issue on merit, prayer for recalling of Tribunal s order would tantamount to review of Tribunal s order dated 13.11.2015. We, therefore, do not see any reason to recall Tribunal s order passed in ITA No. 526/JP/2014. 5. In result, Miscellaneous Application of assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in open court on 16/09/2016. Sd/- Sd/- ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) Accountant Member Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 16/09/2016. Das/ 4 MA 20/JP/2016 Shri Hitesh Koolwal Copy of order forwarded to: s 1. Appellant- Shri Hitesh Koolwal, Jaipur. 2. Respondent ITO Ward 2(4), Jaipur. 3. CIT(A). 4. CIT, 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (M.A No. 20/JP/2016) By order, Assistant. Registrar Hitesh Koolwal v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Jaipur