2014 (2) TMI 89 - AT - Income Tax

Recall of order u/s 254 of the Act - Rectification of mistake apparent from record Held that - It is not expected from a litigant to pick a hole here and there in an order/judgment by quoting one word or the other assessee argued that picking up one word or the other from the order of the Tribunal instead of reading the complete verdict - the Tribunal has finally directed that the assessee be given one more opportunity to produce the parties before the AO for examination thus, it would be wrong on the part of the assessee to plead that the Tribunal had directed to produce three parties only - An order has to be read fully and then its intent is required to be gathered instead of harping upon a single word or sentence thus, there was no mistake, what to say an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Redundancy of MA No.52/Ahd/2012
2. Mistakes in MA No.263/Ahd/2010

Issue 1: Redundancy of MA No.52/Ahd/2012
The judgment addresses the redundancy of MA No.52/Ahd/2012, arising from ITA No.966/Ahd/2007 - A.Y. 2003-04. The Tribunal's order dated 30/04/2008 directed the AO to grant an opportunity to the assessee to prove their case and produce parties for examination. Subsequently, a second round of assessment and appeal took place, leading to another order dated 19.8.2010. As the 2010 order merged with the 2008 order, MA No.52/Ahd/2012 was deemed redundant and dismissed.

Issue 2: Mistakes in MA No.263/Ahd/2010
MA No.263/Ahd/2010, arising from ITA No.l208/Ahd/2010 - A.Y. 2003-04, raised concerns regarding mistakes in the Tribunal's order dated 19.08.2010. The petitioner highlighted discrepancies in the treatment of purchases from 5 parties as bogus due to the failure to produce only 3 parties for verification. The petitioner argued that proving the case or producing the parties should establish the genuineness of purchases. Additionally, the petitioner contested the Tribunal's reliance on uncited case laws without allowing the parties to distinguish them, citing this as a mistake requiring rectification.

Furthermore, the judgment detailed the history of assessments and appeals related to purchases from various parties. The AO's dissatisfaction with the documentary evidence provided by the assessee led to multiple rounds of assessments and appeals. Despite opportunities given to produce parties for verification, the assessee failed to comply, resulting in the confirmation of additions. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of proving the genuineness of purchases and the necessity of producing parties for examination to support these transactions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed both MA No.52/Ahd/2012 and MA No.263/Ahd/2010, addressing issues of redundancy and mistakes in the assessment process. The judgment highlighted the significance of proving the genuineness of transactions through proper documentation and examination of involved parties, underscoring the essential role of evidence in tax assessments.