ORDER : (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.) 1 . Heard learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun K.Patel for the Petitioner. 2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the Order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Ahmedabad (for short “the Tribunal”), in Misc. Application No.85/Ahd/2023 in IT(TP)A No.930/Ahd/2015 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 3. The brief facts of the case can be summarized as under:- 3.1 The respondent filed the return of income on 12.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.32,83,18,600/- for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 3.2 The case of the petitioner was selected for scrutiny and the notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 24.08.2011. 3.3 The Assessing Officer made reference under Section 92CA(1) of the Act to the Transfer Pricing Officer for computation of Arm’s Length Price (ALP) in relation to the international transactions of the Respondent -Assessee. 3.4 The Transfer Pricing Officer passed an Order dated 20.01.2014 under Section 92CA(3) of the Act, determining upward adjustment of Rs.5,23,55,986/-. The Assessing Officer had initially passed the draft Assessment Order dated 11.03.2014 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(1) of the Act. The Respondent- Assessee selected the option of raising objections before the Dispute Resolution Panel against the said draft order. The Assessing Officer thereafter passed the Assessment Order dated 12.02.2015 under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Act in conformity with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 3.5 Being aggrieved, the Respondent-Assessing Officer preferred the Tax Appeal before the Tribunal, which was registered as IT(TP)A No.930/Ahd/2015. The petitioner also preferred an appeal being IT(TP)A No.850/Ahd/2015. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the Respondent-Assessing Officer filed the Cross-objection No.84/Ahd/2015 in the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3.6 The Tribunal by common judgment and order dated 31.05.2023, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and the appeal of the Respondent-Assessee was partly allowed whereas, the Cross-objection was dismissed. 3.7. The Respondent-Assessee, thereafter, filed Misc. Application No. 85/Ahd/2023 under Section 254(2) of the Act for rectification of mistake in the Order dated 31.05.2023, passed by the Tribunal in IT(TP)A No. 930 of 2015 of the Respondent -Assessee. 3.8. The Tribunal by the impugned Order dated 24.01.2024 allowed the Misc. 3.7. The Respondent-Assessee, thereafter, filed Misc. Application No. 85/Ahd/2023 under Section 254(2) of the Act for rectification of mistake in the Order dated 31.05.2023, passed by the Tribunal in IT(TP)A No. 930 of 2015 of the Respondent -Assessee. 3.8. The Tribunal by the impugned Order dated 24.01.2024 allowed the Misc. Application filed by the Respondent- Assessee by recalling its order dated 31.05.2023 passed in IT(TP)A No.930 of 2015 for the limited purpose of re-adjudicating Ground No.4 with regard to the Transfer Pricing Adjustment in relation to the international transaction of payment of guarantee fees by the Respondent- Assessee to the Associated Enterprise. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Tribunal, allowing the Misc. Application filed by the Respondent- Assessee, the Petitioner-Revenue has preferred this petition for quashing and setting aside the same. 5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Varun Patel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal could not have entertained the Misc. Application filed by the Respondent- Assessee under Section 254(2) of the Act as there is no mistake apparent on record. It was submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the comparable cases of earlier year i.e., Assessment Year 2009-10 relied upon by the petitioner, wherein, the Tribunal has deleted the similar addition made by the Assessing Officer/TPO, as it was never cited but, only the decision of the CIT (Appeals) was pointed out during the course of hearing of the appeal by the Assessee. It was submitted that the reference to the order of the CIT(Appeals) was made in the submissions of the Assessee, filed before the Tribunal. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Patel invited the attention of the Court to the Paragraph No.20 of the order of the Tribunal in the appeal, wherein, it was stated that the reference was made to the Order passed by the CIT (Appeals) deleting the adjustment relating to payment of the guarantee fees for the Assessment Year 2009-10. It was therefore submitted that the decision of the Tribunal was not cited or referred by the Respondent-Assessee at the time of hearing of the appeal and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was any error in the Order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the Tribunal, rejecting the claim of Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.52,91,667/-in respect of guarantee fees for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 5.1 In support of his submissions, the reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of the Commissioner of Income-tax (IT-4), Mumbai Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. reported in [2022] 440 ITR 1 (SC) 5.2 It was submitted that, in similar facts, the Hon’ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, setting aside the Order passed by the High Court confirming the Rectification Order passed by the Tribunal holding that the Tribunal was not justified in exercising the power under Section 254(2) of the Act by re-visiting its original order and go in details on merits and thereafter recall its Order. It was therefore submitted that merely because it was pointed out before the Tribunal that the order in the earlier year in the case of the Assessee was not considered by the Tribunal, it cannot be said to be the mistake apparent from the record, as it was only the order passed by the CIT (Appeals), which was relied upon by the Assessee. 5.3 Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Patel, during the course of hearing has tendered the draft amendment placing on record the Order dated 12.07.2024, passed by the Tribunal after recalling its Order for deciding Ground No.4 in Tax Appeal No.930 of 2015. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith. It was further prayed that the Order dated 12.07.2024 to quash and set aside in view of the challenge to the order of Misc. Application made by the petitioner in this petition and amendment was also sought to add prayer (AA) in paragraph No. 5, the same is also allowed and to be carried out forthwith. 6. On perusal of the Order dated 12.07.2024, it appears that the Tribunal has decided the Ground No.4 regarding the adjustment of Rs.52,91,667/-, in relation to the international transaction of payments of guarantee fees to the Associated Enterprise in favour of the Assessee relying upon the Order passed by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 886 of 2018, whereby, the Order of the Tribunal for the earlier year i.e., Assessment Year 2009-10 is confirmed. 7. 7. In view of the above facts emerging from the record, it would be an academic exercise to decide as to whether the Tribunal was right in exercising its powers under Section 254(2) of the Act, more particularly, when this Court while rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue arising from the Order of the Tribunal for the earlier Assessment Year 2009-10 has approved the findings of the Tribunal as under :- “7. Now so far as the proposed Question (C), i.e. deleting the addition made on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.23,51,667/- is concerned, apart from the fact that in the case of the very assess in earlier year, similar addition was deleted, even on merits also, the learned ITAT has observed as under:- "17. There is no dispute that all the three entities that is the assessee company, the lender company and the guarantor company are Associated Enterprises. There is also on dispute that the assessee has borrowed the money on interest of 12.25% per annum as against interest of 15% quoted by the Bank. Considering the guarantee commission of 0.75% paid by the assessee, the total cost of borrowing comes to 13% which is still lower than the rate of 15% quoted by the Bank. This in itself justifies the payment of guarantee commission. Further, the First Appellate Authority has given a categorical finding in relation to similar transactions in earlier assessment year, where no adjustment was made by the AO / TPO. Another undisputed fact is that the operating margin of the assessee company is at 18.21% which is much better as compared to the average margin of 10.36% of the other comparables. On this account also, the payment of guarantee commission is justifiable. Considering the facts in totality in the light of the previous history of the assessee, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the ld. CIT(A). Ground no.4 is accordingly dismissed." Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned ITAT has committed any error in deleting the addition made on account of Transfer Pricing Adjustment of Rs.23,51,667/-. No substantial question of law arises. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we concur with the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) as well as learned ITAT. As observed hereinabove, no substantial questions of law arise. No substantial question of law arises. 8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we concur with the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) as well as learned ITAT. As observed hereinabove, no substantial questions of law arise. Under the circumstances, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. It is, accordingly dismissed. 8. In view of the above Order passed by this Court in Tax Appeal No. 886 of 2018, the Tribunal has rightly decided the Ground No.4 pertaining to the upward adjustment of international transaction of payment of guarantee fees to the Associated Enterprise in favour of the Respondent-Assessee. Therefore, without going into the larger question of exercising the powers of the Tribunal under Section 254(2) of the Act to recall its order, in view of the Order passed by the Tribunal in case of the Assessee for the earlier year was justified or not, the petition is not entertained, in view of the decision stated hereinabove. This petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.