1997 (2) TMI 180 - AT - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Erroneous assessment of opening balance u/s 69.
2. Application of section 69 despite maintenance of books of account.
3. Misinterpretation of seized account Book No. SD 53.
4. Incorrect reclassification of income head during rectification.
5. Scope of the set-aside order by the CIT(A).
6. Ignoring departmental proceedings regarding SD 53.
7. Incorrect finding on ownership of SD 53.
8. Discrepancies in the adoption of the previous year for assessment.

Summary:

1. Erroneous assessment of opening balance u/s 69:
The assessee contended that the opening balance for the assessment year 1976-77 was incorrectly taken as income for the assessment year 1975-76 u/s 69 of the I.T. Act. The Tribunal acknowledged that section 69 deals with investments not recorded in the books of account and that this aspect was not considered, leading to a mistake apparent from the record.

2. Application of section 69 despite maintenance of books of account:
The assessee argued that section 69 applies only when entries are not recorded in the books of account. Since the books were maintained and entries recorded, the assessment under section 69 was erroneous. The Tribunal found this to be a mistake apparent from the records.

3. Misinterpretation of seized account Book No. SD 53:
The Tribunal noted a contradiction in treating SD 53 as a common book for the opening balance but as belonging solely to the assessee for the closing balance. The Assessing Officer had accepted part of the entries as relating to other family members, indicating a mistake in the Tribunal's order.

4. Incorrect reclassification of income head during rectification:
The income initially assessed under the head 'Business' was later reclassified under 'Other sources' without any direction from the appellate order. The Tribunal's confirmation of this reclassification was identified as a mistake.

5. Scope of the set-aside order by the CIT(A):
The Tribunal misunderstood the set-aside order by the CIT(A) as limited to specific points, whereas it was meant for a complete reassessment. This misunderstanding constituted a mistake apparent on record.

6. Ignoring departmental proceedings regarding SD 53:
The Tribunal failed to consider departmental proceedings that reported SD 53 as a common book for family members. This omission was deemed a mistake apparent from the records.

7. Incorrect finding on ownership of SD 53:
The Tribunal incorrectly concluded that SD 53 belonged to the assessee, ignoring objections and evidence indicating it was a common book for family members. This was identified as a mistake.

8. Discrepancies in the adoption of the previous year for assessment:
The previous year relevant to the assessment year was inconsistently adopted by the Income-tax Officer, leading to discrepancies in the assessment. This issue was raised as a mistake apparent from the records.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's order dated 19-11-1990 was recalled due to multiple mistakes apparent from the record. The Third Member agreed with the Accountant Member that allowing the Miscellaneous Petition would amount to an impermissible review of the Tribunal's order. The Miscellaneous Petition was ultimately dismissed in accordance with the majority view.