2016 (5) TMI 919 - AT - Income Tax

Rectification of mistake - there being no retraction of the declaration of ₹ 28 Lakhs the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal with the assumption that applicant has retracted the declaration and sustaining the addition of ₹ 17,23,824/- is not correct on facts - Held that - We do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee. The main thrust of the assessee in the Miscellaneous Application is that assessee has not retracted the declaration made that the amount of ₹ 28,00,000/- is not required to be added since the same gets covered in the excess cash of ₹ 45,00,484/- and that certain observations made in Para 15 of the order are not correct. We have again gone through the findings given at Para 15 to 17 of our order, vis- -vis the contents of the Miscellaneous Application and find that the assessee through this Miscellaneous Application requests the Tribunal to rectify certain mistakes which the assessee believes to have occurred. Such request of the assessee to rectify the order u/s.254 of the I.T. Act, in our opinion, amounts to review of its own order by the Tribunal, which is not permissible in law. The Tribunal has passed an elaborate and speaking order after considering the entire facts on record, the declaration made during the course of search/survey and the return filed in response to notice u/s.153A and has given reasons as to how & why the amount of ₹ 17,23,824/- has to be sustained. In our opinion, there is no apparent mistake in the order passed by the Tribunal. We therefore do not find any merit in the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee and accordingly dismiss the same. - Decided against assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Rectification of alleged mistakes in the Tribunal's order.
2. Addition of ?28 lakhs on account of peak investment in unaccounted transactions.
3. Inclusion of ?45,00,484/- as excess cash found during the search.
4. Addition of ?10,76,176/- representing debtors from unaccounted sales and purchases.
5. Allegation of double taxation of the same amount.

Detailed Analysis:

Rectification of Alleged Mistakes in the Tribunal's Order:
The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Application requesting the Tribunal to rectify certain mistakes in its order. The Tribunal examined the request and concluded that the application amounted to a review of its own order, which is not permissible under law. The Tribunal emphasized that it had passed a detailed and speaking order after considering all facts on record, the declaration made during the search, and the return filed in response to notice u/s.153A. Consequently, the Tribunal found no apparent mistake in its order and dismissed the Miscellaneous Application.

Addition of ?28 Lakhs on Account of Peak Investment in Unaccounted Transactions:
The Tribunal noted that during the search, the assessee admitted additional income of ?28 lakhs as undisclosed income being peak investment in unaccounted transactions. However, this amount was not declared in the return filed in response to notice u/s.153A. The Tribunal upheld the addition of ?17,23,824/- out of the ?28 lakhs, reasoning that the assessee had not retracted the statement made during the search. The Tribunal found that the amount of ?10,76,176/- related to unaccounted debtors and was already included in the peak investment of ?28 lakhs, thus avoiding double taxation for this portion.

Inclusion of ?45,00,484/- as Excess Cash Found During the Search:
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had declared ?45,00,484/- as excess cash found during the search. The assessee argued that the ?28 lakhs declared as peak investment was already included in this excess cash, and hence, a separate addition was not warranted. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the assessee's admission of ?28 lakhs was over and above the excess cash found.

Addition of ?10,76,176/- Representing Debtors from Unaccounted Sales and Purchases:
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's declaration of ?10,76,176/- as debtors from unaccounted sales and purchases. The Tribunal accepted that this amount was part of the peak investment of ?28 lakhs and allowed a reduction of ?10,76,176/- from the total addition, thus preventing double taxation for this portion.

Allegation of Double Taxation of the Same Amount:
The assessee contended that the addition of ?28 lakhs constituted double taxation since it was already included in the excess cash of ?45,00,484/-. The Tribunal found no merit in this argument, stating that the assessee had not retracted the statement of ?28 lakhs made during the search. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's argument did not hold since the ?28 lakhs was over and above the declared excess cash.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee, reaffirming its original decision. It held that the assessee's request for rectification amounted to a review, which is not permissible. The Tribunal maintained that there was no apparent mistake in its order and that the addition of ?17,23,824/- was justified based on the facts and admissions made during the search.

← Previous Next →