2013 (12) TMI 597 - AT - Income Tax

Whether Tribunal can review its own order u/s 254 - Held that - In all the points raised by the assessee in its miscellaneous application is basically a review of the detail finding and conclusion given by the Tribunal and there is no mistake apparent from record which can be rectified within the scope of Section 254(2) - Decided against assessee.

Issues involved:
1. Rectification of mistakes apparent from the record in the order passed by ITAT Mumbai in ITA No. 1811/M/2012.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in the appeal was the disallowance of expenses claimed for distributing gold coins on mobile sets. The assessee claimed to have distributed 3,400 gold coins of 20g each inserted in mobile handsets as part of a sales promotion scheme. However, after detailed examination, the AO concluded the claim was bogus. The CIT(A) conducted further inquiries, leading to the same conclusion. The Tribunal thoroughly analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties before arriving at a definite conclusion. The Tribunal's detailed findings are provided in the order from pages 10 to 24, with a pointwise conclusion in para 16.

2. The Tribunal addressed various contentions raised by the assessee. In point No.1, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the claim that Opal Industries was a dealer in jewelry and precious metals, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting this assertion. The Tribunal concluded that the possibility of transactions involving gold bars and coins as claimed was not substantiated by concrete proof, leading to an adverse inference against the assessee.

3. Point No.2 raised by the assessee regarding the timeline of receiving and dispatching gold coins was also dismissed by the Tribunal, as it did not impact the overall conclusion. The Tribunal's findings were based on the sequence of events and lack of supporting evidence for the claimed transactions.

4. The Tribunal addressed the assessee's attempt to demonstrate the undetectability of gold coins in handset packets in point No.3, concluding that the explanation provided was improbable. This conclusion was supported by additional factors and the AO's inquiry.

5. The Tribunal rejected the evidence of gold coin insertion provided by the assessee's employee in point No.4, as it did not align with the overall rejection of the insertion theory. Similarly, discrepancies regarding the number of handsets in a packet, as raised in point No.5, did not affect the Tribunal's conclusion and were dismissed.

6. The Tribunal refuted the assessee's claim of actual payment and subsequent reimbursement, clarifying that the received amount was part of a fixed marketing budget and not linked to the specific scheme in question. The Tribunal also extensively analyzed the points raised based on the supplier's affidavit in point No.7, providing a detailed rebuttal.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no mistake apparent from the record that warranted rectification under Section 254(2). The miscellaneous application filed by the assessee was dismissed, affirming the original order. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of the evidence, arguments, and contentions presented during the proceedings.

This comprehensive analysis highlights the key issues, arguments, and conclusions drawn by the ITAT Mumbai in the mentioned judgment, providing a detailed overview of the case and the Tribunal's decision.

← Previous Next →