2021 (5) TMI 686 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - Addition of peak balance - HELD THAT - Peak balance of the said bank account number has not been discussed by the ld. CIT(A) in his order. On further appeal, the Tribunal has adjudicated the fact which is being generated from the assessment order. Since the object is to adjudicate the investment made in the impugned bank accounts. Therefore, the Tribunal as a fact finding authority noted that there was a mistake committed by the Assessing Officer in making the total of these figures. Tribunal is a fact finding authority and when the Tribunal came to know this fact that the amount of ₹ 2,02,067/- has escaped in the total sum computed by the Assessing Officer, the addition was made by Tribunal. We note that the ld. CIT(A) did not take any effort to make the total of these four figures of these four bank accounts and only adjudicate the sum of total determined by the Assessing Officer at ₹ 20,57,654/-. The real fact is that sum of these four figures comes to ₹ 22,57,654/- whereas Assessing Officer has taken wrongly at ₹ 20,57,654/-, hence the said issue was therefore before the Assessing Officer as well as ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we note that Tribunal is right in adjudicating the issue of the peak amount of ₹ 2,02,067/-, hence we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal. This mistake was committed by the Assessing Officer while doing totaling of these figures at ₹ 20,57,654/- and the (correct total comes at ₹ 22,57,654/-) said mistake was carried forward up to CIT(A) and then before this Tribunal. Therefore, the contention of ld. Counsel that the issue of the peak amount of ₹ 2,02,067/- was not before this Tribunal, is not acceptable; hence we dismiss the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has crept in the order of the Tribunal dated 19.09.2014.

Analysis:
1. The assessee contended that the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee to the extent of the peak balance contested in specific serial numbers, totaling to ?22,57,654. However, the Tribunal confirmed an addition of ?2,02,067 against a particular peak balance due to the assessee's failure to make submissions. The Tribunal explained that the deposits were made during the Assessment Year 2005-06, and the addition cannot be made in the year under appeal for unexplained investment. The Tribunal noted that the Authorized Representative of the assessee made no submissions for the specific bank account in question, leading to the confirmation of the addition of ?2,02,067.

2. The counsel for the assessee argued that the addition made by the Tribunal on account of the peak credit of ?2,02,067 should be deleted as it was not contested before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative for the Revenue argued that the peak balance of ?2,02,067 was part of the facts before the Tribunal and was derived from the assessment order, indicating no apparent mistake in the Tribunal's order.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and noted that the Assessing Officer had incorrectly totaled the figures related to the bank accounts, leading to the inclusion of ?2,02,067 in the wrong total. The Tribunal clarified that the mistake in totaling was carried forward to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and then to the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that there was no error in its order as it correctly adjudicated the issue of the peak amount of ?2,02,067, which was part of the total sum of ?22,57,654.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the mistake in totaling was initially made by the Assessing Officer, and the issue of the peak amount of ?2,02,067 was indeed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's order.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2006-07, maintaining the decision regarding the peak balance and the addition of ?2,02,067 as part of the total sum considered in the Tribunal's order dated 19.09.2014.