Income-tax Appellate Tribunal - H Bench Mumbai , Before S Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member MA No.99 Mum 2016 (Arising out of ITA No.4741 Mum 2014 ; Assessment Year-2010-11) Hygenic Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. Income tax Officer (Formerly known as HRI Cosmetic Ward-8(2)(1),Aayakar Bhavan, (India) Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai-400020. 602, Supreme Chambers, OffVeera Desai Vs. Road, Andheri West Mumbai-400 053. PAN:AABCH 1547 F (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rajneesh K. Arvind-DR Assessee by: Ms. Usha Kadam-AR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 19.10.2016 ,1961 254(1) Order u s.254(1)of Income-tax Act,1961(Act) , PER Rajendra A.M.- Vide its application,dt 4.5.2016,the assessee has stated that there were certain mistakes in order of Tribunal, dated 29.9.16,that same were to be rectified as per provisions of section 254(2) of Act,that while deciding issue of granting deduction u s.80IC in respect of miscellaneous income Tribunal had decided issue against assessee, that details of miscellaneous income were given in statement of facts filed before FAA who did not consider same while passing order,that rectification application dt.236.2014 was filed before FAA,that above fact was argued before Tribunal, that while deciding appeal it did not consider arguments with regard to 80IC deduction in respect of miscellaneous income. 2.During course of hearing before us, Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated above arguments.The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that there was no mistake in order of Tribunal, that it had decided matter on merits, that assessee wanted to review case in name of rectification.He relied on case of Ramesh Electrical & Trading Co.(203ITR497). MA 99 M 16-Hygenic Research IPL 3.We have heard rival submissions and taken note of hearing as recorded in Log- book.It is found that before us,the assessee had not brought anything on record about filing of details before AO or FAA, that application alleged to be filed before FAA was also not referred to.Tribunal is supposed to consider material which is relied upon during course of hearing. It is not known as to whether assessee had followed up rectification application filed before FAA by filing RTI application. We find that FAA had decided appeal in April 2014.What was progress of rectification application till hearing before us i.e. 18.02.2016 is known to assessee only. Finally,we will like to refer to case of Ramesh Electrical (supra), wherein Hon ble jurisdictional High Court has held that failure by Tribunal to consider argument advanced by either party is not error apparent from record, although it may be error of judgment.In our opinion,in case under consideration there is no error of judgment also.Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain application filed by assessee. As result, Miscellaneous Application filed by assessee stands dismissed. . Order pronounced in open court on 19th October, 2016. 19 , 2016 ( Rajendra) Sd - Sd - ( Ram Lal Negi) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 19. 10.2016. Jv.Sr.PS. Copy of Order forwarded to : 1.Appellant 2. Respondent 3.The concerned CIT(A) , 4.The concerned CIT 5.DR Bench, ITAT, Mumbai , 6.Guard File True Copy BY ORDER, Dy. Asst. Registrar , ITAT, Mumbai. 2 Hygenic Research Institute Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as HRI Cosmetic (India) Pvt. Ltd.) v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-8(2)(1), Mumbai