2013 (10) TMI 1131 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Earlier ITAT had remanded back the case to the CIT(A) with direction to given an opportunity to AO before allowing expenses - appellant contended that the Hon ble ITAT has exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating beyond the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, he argued that it is an apparent mistake on the part of the Bench - Held that - After carefully considering the issues of the assessee, we do not find any apparent mistake on record and detailed findings have been given in respective paras. If we entertain the argument of the assessee through M.A., it tantamount to review of our own case. The law doesn t permit us to review our own judgment - Decided against the assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Addition of Rs.20 lacs in the assessment for A.Y. 1998-99.
2. Verification of interest amount under section 68.
3. Verification of loan shown from M/s. Vidhi Corporation.
4. Deletion of Rs.1,72,17,951/- on account of bank charges and commission.
5. Deletion of addition of Rs.19,24,117/- made on account of bill discounting charges.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the addition of Rs.20 lacs, arguing that the source of the cash credits had already been accepted by the ITAT in the case of two cash creditors. The appellant contended that the addition was based on a wrong appreciation of facts and cited judicial pronouncements to support their case. They also highlighted discrepancies in the ITAT's decision regarding the acceptance of cash credits. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's arguments, stating that there was no apparent mistake on record and that entertaining the appellant's arguments would amount to a review of their own judgment, which is not permitted by law.

2. Regarding the verification of interest amount under section 68, the ITAT directed the AO to verify the interest claimed as expenses by the assessee. The appellant argued that the direction to verify interest payments from the books of accounts was erroneous as the expenses were not recorded in the books. The appellant contended that since no interest was paid and recorded in the books, the verification exercise was unnecessary. However, the ITAT upheld its direction for verification, stating that no apparent mistake was found on record.

3. The ITAT also directed the AO to verify the loan shown from M/s. Vidhi Corporation. The appellant argued that the direction to verify the loan with reference to the addition made in the assessment order was contrary to established facts and law. The appellant asserted that the burden should not be on them to identify the transaction and that the AO's approach was flawed. The ITAT, however, upheld its direction for verification, stating that there was no apparent mistake on record.

4. The issue of deletion of Rs.1,72,17,951/- on account of bank charges and commission was raised. The ITAT set aside the matter to the AO, citing that the CIT(A) had not given an opportunity to the AO before allowing the expenses. The appellant argued that the ITAT exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating beyond the grounds of appeal. The ITAT maintained its decision, stating that no apparent mistake was found on record.

5. Lastly, the deletion of the addition of Rs.19,24,117/- made on account of bill discounting charges was discussed. The ITAT dismissed the appellant's arguments, stating that there was no apparent mistake on record and detailed findings had been provided in the respective paragraphs. The ITAT emphasized that reviewing their own judgment was not permitted by law and thus dismissed the appellant's appeal.

In conclusion, the ITAT upheld its original order, dismissing the appellant's Miscellaneous Application and maintaining the additions and directions issued in the assessment for A.Y. 1998-99.

← Previous Next →