Baroda. Ltd. SPARC, Tandalja, Baroda. (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri G.C. Srivastava, Advocate Special Counsel Shri Sukh Sagar Syal, C.A. Assessee by : Shri S.N.Soparkar, with Shri Vartik Chokshi, AR सन ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 14/08/2018 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/09/2018 आदे श/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Present Misc. Application is directed at the instance of the Revenue pointing out some apparent mistake in the order of the ITAT dated 16.10.2017 passed in ITA No.3297/Ahd/2014 and seeking necessary modification thereof. 2. The Revenue in its MA submits as under: "1. Revenue filed an application dated 21.04.2017 under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules urging the Hon'ble Bench to admit certain additional pieces of evidence. The admission of the additional evidence was opposed by the counsel for the appellant in the course of hearing of the case. MA No.260/Ahd/2017 ACIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. 2 2. However, the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal does not even make a mention of any such application having been filed by the Revenue nor does it record any decision with regard to the fate of such application., 5. This constitutes a grave mistake apparent from record and is likely to adversely affect the case of Revenue at the higher forum. This needs to be taken into account and suitable remedial orders deserve to be passed in this case. B. Ground no. 2: Interest on share application money 4. This ground of appeal is dealt with in the order from pages 39. In para 12, the submissions of Revenue have been summarised. The findings appear in paras 13 to 15 of the order. 5.The finding of the Hon'ble ITAT suffers from the following mistakes which are apparent from record: i) In the impugned order, the ITAT has proceeded on the assumption that theRevenue is seeking to recharacterize the transaction of share application money as a loan. In this regard, it is submitted that the Revenue never sought to recharacterize the transaction. In the schedule detailing related party transactions, the amount advanced to the subsidiary was shown under the head 'Loans/Share Application Money' or as 'Loans' only in years without specifying whether a particular outstanding was a loan or share application money. It was in this backdrop that the Revenue raised a primary objection that the assessee has failed to demonstrate that the money was advanced as share application money. It was argued at length to point out that neither any Board resolution from the share issuing company or from the assessee is on record to give it a character of share application money. The amount of capital proposed to be raised, the schedule of payment of share application money and the period within which the shares are to be allotted have got to be specified in such a board resolution. It was submitted before the Hon'ble bench that in the absence of any board resolution from either of the two companies, the contention of the appellant that the advance was towards share application money and not by way of loan is totally contrary to the facts on record (paras ix and x of the written submission). The Hon'ble Tribunal has neither recorded these submissions in para 12 nor has given any consideration to these vital submissions made orally as also in writing. The appellant did not lead any evidence at any stage of the proceedings including the rejoinder to Revenue's MA No.260/Ahd/2017 ACIT Vs. Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. 3 submissions. In the written submissions filed post the hearing on 8th May, 2017, a statement is made that the Board of the appellant company had resolved to