9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee under section 254(2) on the issue of addition of Rs. 11 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer can be allowed. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Initial Proceedings: - A search action under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted against the assessee on 15-12-1997. - The assessee declared Nil undisclosed income for the block period from 1-4-1987 to 15-12-1997, but the Assessing Officer computed the total undisclosed income at Rs. 18,80,887. - Upon appeal, the CIT(A) partially accepted the assessee's appeal. - Cross appeals were filed by both sides before the Tribunal, where the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and two out of three grounds raised by the assessee were allowed. However, the third ground regarding the addition of Rs. 11 lakhs was dismissed. 2. Sustenance of Addition of Rs. 11 Lakhs: - During the search, a document (Page No. 18 of Annexure A-1) was found, which the assessee claimed to be a proposed planner, not actual expenses. - The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not accept the assessee's contention, treating the noted expenses as actual and adding Rs. 11 lakhs as income from undisclosed sources. - The Tribunal upheld this view, noting the exact denominations of cash and date-wise entries of expenses over 15 months, which indicated actual transactions rather than a planner. - The Tribunal also observed that the assessee's claim of sufficient cash availability was disproved by bank statements showing minimal balances. 3. First Miscellaneous Application: - The assessee filed a miscellaneous application under section 254(2), arguing erroneous facts and misappreciation of facts, and non-consideration of vital issues. - The Tribunal dismissed this application, emphasizing that the power of rectification under section 254(2) is limited to correcting mistakes apparent from the record and does not extend to reviewing the order. 4. Second Miscellaneous Application: - The assessee filed another miscellaneous application with similar contentions as the first, adding reliance on certain judgments. - The Judicial Member (JM) recalled the order based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.R. Metrani v. CIT, which clarified that the presumption under section 132(4A) is not available for framing regular assessment. - The Accountant Member (AM) disagreed, stating that successive miscellaneous applications are not permissible and that the judgment in P.R. Metrani is not applicable. 5. Tribunal's Decision on Second Application: - The Tribunal reiterated that the power under section 254(2) is confined to rectifying mistakes apparent from the record and does not allow for rehearing or rearguing the matter. - The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 11 lakhs was based on the appreciation of evidence (Page No. 18) found during the search, which was admitted by the assessee to be in his handwriting. - The Tribunal found no mistake apparent from the record in the original order and dismissed the second miscellaneous application. 6. Legal Precedents and Jurisdictional High Court's View: - The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decisions in T.S. Balram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd., and Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., which clarified the scope of rectification under section 254(2). - The Tribunal also considered the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in CIT v. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co., which held that the Tribunal cannot review its orders under the guise of rectification. 7. Conclusion: - The Tribunal concluded that the second miscellaneous application was not maintainable as it was based on the same set of facts as the first application. - The Tribunal found no error in the original order, as the addition of Rs. 11 lakhs was based on substantial evidence and proper appreciation of facts. - The Tribunal agreed with the Accountant Member's view and directed the matter to be listed before the Division Bench for passing an order in accordance with the majority view.
|
