9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (10) TMI 88X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the appellant during the assessment proceedings for the asst. year 1984-85. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in a situation where the evidence in support of deposit of Rs. 47,006 in the bank account of the assessee had already been filed during the assessment proceedings of the immediate preceding year, the addition of the amount for want of an already existing evidence is a mistake apparent on record which has to be rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. It is thus prayed that the addition of Rs. 47,006 sustained as above may kindly be deleted." 2. Facts are like this that assessee's appeal in this case was decided ex parte and came to be dismissed vide order dated28-2-1989in the absence of assessee. Assessee moved an application for rectification of the appellate order dated28-2-1989on4th October, 1990and following grounds were raised: "An appeal was filed by me against the order of the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle-16, New Delhi, passed on 8-3-1988 under section 143(3) for the assessment year 1985-86 (Annex-I). The said appeal was decided ex parte by your honour on28-2-1989(Annex-II) as the undersigned could not appear befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... obviously the ITO rejected this request as the appellant had failed to do so in spite of opportunity already availed. Thus the ITO treated the amount of Rs. 47,006 as also unexplained credit in the bank account and added to the assessable income. It is clear that before me neither any one appeared on behalf of the appellant nor any written arguments submitted to rebut the facts stated in the assessment order concerning these two bank credits and therefore, obviously I have to accept the facts stated in the preceding para. It is clear that I have also allowed the appellant reasonable opportunity of hearing of this appeal and placing of appellant's defence if any, before me but the appellant had failed to do so. Thus, in the light of above stated facts I would uphold the ITO's finding with regard to both the credit amounts that they had remained unexplained for want of evidence in support of stand taken on behalf of the appellant or in the alternative the source of funds utilised for these credits was not satisfactorily explained and thus law had to take its course. Thus disputed additions of Rs. 6,602 and Rs. 47,006 are confirmed and ground No. 1 is rejected. In the result, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the year under consideration was already on record in assessment proceedings for asst. year 1984-85 and so there was no point for CIT(A) to reject the claim of the assessee made in application under section 154 as "record" as mentioned in the relevant provision cannot be said to be record for the relevant assessment year only but record for earlier year also. Since claim of the assessee was not considered as regards receipt of amount from LIC on maturity of policies for which evidence was already on record and request under section 154 of the Act was made to rectify the mistake, therefore, CIT(A) should have accepted the plea of the assessee and by passing order of rectification should have allowed the relief. Since same has not been done, it was urged for acceptance of request of the assessee and urged for deletion of addition. 5. The learned DR while relying upon the orders of authorities below has pleaded for its confirmation. It was strongly pleaded that ample opportunities were granted to the assessee at the assessment stage and due opportunity was also granted at appeal stage but assessee failed to avail either of the opportunities to produce necessary evidence in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue warranting the exercise of revisionary jurisdiction by him under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. Since the term 'record' has come to be widely interpreted in scope and amplitude the same logic should follow for the purpose of rectification of mistakes apparent from record because when once something which was not on record at the time of assessment or intimation and the same is placed on record by the assessee subsequent thereto with a request for rectification of mistake apparent from record, the Assessing Officer would be obliged to rectify the mistakes in the order already passed and modify the same suitably in exercise of the power of rectification. He cannot plead that the document/report/statement etc. had not been on record at the time of issue of intimation or passing of the assessment order and, therefore, the application for rectification cannot be justified or acted upon. The view taken by the Supreme Court in the context of revision in regard to the meaning of 'record' should equally apply for the purpose of rectification of mistakes apparent from record under sections 154 and 155 by the authorities and in any case the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
