2013 (4) TMI 521 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification/recall of the order of this Tribunal allowed as there was a mistake in noting the appearance for the assessee at the time of hearing on the appeals, inasmuch the name of one P.V.Ramachandra Rao was mentioned whereas the name Shri N.Purnachandra Rao should have been mentioned - in favour of assessee. Rectification/recall of the order of this Tribunal - as per the assessee the letter issued by the Andhra Bank reflecting the property bearing No.8-2-293/82/NL/61A, included in the list of properties against which credit limits were sanctioned, was submitted as per the directions of the Tribunal for substantial cause under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules and not as an additional evidence thus there is mistake in the order of the Tribunal - Held that - Tribunal has decided the issue on various counts and non-admission of the evidence in the form of bank s letter filed by the the assessee, did not clinch the issue against the assessee. That being the case, even admission of the said letter, would not have made any change to the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no mistake apparent from record in the order of the Tribunal in its decision on this issue. In any event, the decisions/observations of the Tribunal to treat the letter of the Andhra Bank filed by the assessee as additional evidence, not to admit the said additional evidence and the consequential findings even if the said additional evidence is admitted and considered are conscious ones, and all that the assessee is seeking by the present applications is a mere review of those decisions/ observations, which is not permissible in these proceedings under S.254(2), the scope of which is confined to mere rectification of mistakes apparent from record. Against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Rectification/recall of the order regarding appearance of the assessee and advances treated as deemed dividend.

Analysis:
1. The applicants sought rectification of the tribunal's order due to an error in noting the appearance of the assessee during the hearing. The tribunal acknowledged the mistake and rectified it by substituting the correct name in the order.

2. Regarding the treatment of advances as deemed dividend, the Departmental Representative argued that the tribunal's order was correct and no mistake existed. The applicants contended that they provided necessary details as directed by the tribunal, but the order did not consider this submission. They argued that the property in question was mortgaged with the bank, contrary to the Departmental Representative's claim.

3. The tribunal examined the submissions and found that no specific direction was given to the applicants to provide evidence of the property being mortgaged. It noted that the letter submitted by the bank was not admitted as additional evidence but was considered in the decision. The tribunal upheld its original decision that the advances constituted deemed dividend, citing the clear language of the relevant provision.

4. The tribunal concluded that there was no mistake in its decision regarding the treatment of advances as deemed dividend. It emphasized that the non-admission of the bank's letter as additional evidence did not impact the final decision. The tribunal rejected the applicants' contentions and partly allowed their applications.

In summary, the tribunal rectified the appearance error but upheld its decision on treating advances as deemed dividend, finding no mistake in its original order. The tribunal's analysis focused on the lack of specific evidence regarding the mortgaging of the property and the strict interpretation of the relevant provision, ultimately rejecting the applicants' arguments.