2014 (1) TMI 703 - AT - Income Tax

Recall of order u/s 254 of the Act Mistake apparent from record Held that - The assessee pointed out that while deciding the issue and coming to the conclusion that the agriculturists had taken loans from him and the amount credited on receipt of loan/ amounts advanced earlier was not proved from the bank account - the Tribunal has mentioned that the cheque no vide which amount was deposited in the bank account and cheaue no. recorded in the books of account did not tally - the assessee pointed out that ITAT had mentioned the bank account no. as cheque no. by mistake and thereafter concluded that cheque nos. did not tally. In the account of Shri Jagdish Prasad, an amount of Rs. 3.00 lacs was deposited on 20-04-2006 vide cheque no.218166 whereas in the assesee s bank account cheqaue no. is 036235 - It is noticed that cheque no. 218166 was wrongly mentioned - this was the bank account no. Similar was the position of Shri Hanuman Prasad there was merit in the submissions of the assessee that while coming to the conclusion that cheques were not tallied and bank account no. was mentioned in place of cheque no. - Since it is a mistake apparent from record, the Misc. Application of the assessee allowed Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Apparent mistakes in the order passed by ITAT Jodhpur regarding cash creditors.

Analysis:
1. The Miscellaneous Application was filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 9-09-2011 in ITA No.527/Jodh/2010. The assessee contended that the Tribunal had overlooked certain judgments cited during the hearing and made errors in deciding the appeal related to cash creditors. The assessee pointed out discrepancies in the Tribunal's findings concerning the cash credits. The Tribunal mistakenly considered bank account numbers as cheque numbers, leading to erroneous conclusions. The assessee provided detailed submissions and evidence to rectify these errors, highlighting specific instances where the Tribunal misinterpreted the transactions involving cash credits.

2. The assessee's counsel presented arguments for rectification of mistakes apparent on the face of the record. The submissions included detailed accounts of transactions with various debtors, highlighting discrepancies between cheque numbers and bank account numbers. The counsel emphasized that the Tribunal's findings contained factual errors that needed rectification. The counsel relied on legal precedents and judgments to support the plea for reconsideration based on factual inaccuracies in the Tribunal's order.

3. The Departmental Representative (D.R.) for the Revenue opposed the assessee's application, arguing that there were no apparent mistakes in the Tribunal's order warranting rectification. The D.R. contended that the Tribunal's decision was well-reasoned, and the assessee's request for a review was impermissible. However, upon careful consideration of both parties' submissions and a thorough review of the case records, the Tribunal acknowledged the errors in its order. The Tribunal recognized the discrepancies in mentioning bank account numbers as cheque numbers, leading to incorrect conclusions regarding cash credits. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, recalling the order dated 09-09-2011 for reconsideration specifically concerning the issue of cash credits.

4. The Tribunal's decision to recall the order was based on the acknowledgment of the mistakes apparent from the record, particularly regarding the confusion between bank account numbers and cheque numbers in the assessment of cash credits. By allowing the Miscellaneous Application, the Tribunal ensured a fair reconsideration of the issue, emphasizing the importance of rectifying factual errors to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. The Tribunal directed the registry to reschedule the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for accuracy and clarity in addressing the concerns raised by the assessee regarding the cash credits under dispute.