9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee/petitioner had in the relevant assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 declared its income. During the course of enquiry it was conceded that profits were made by it relating to accommodation entry operations. They were shown in the credit side of the profit and loss accounts for the relevant years and in the income tax returns for those years. In the assessments, those amounts were added u/s 68 of the Act. The petitioner was aggrieved by the orders of the assessing officer and appealed to the CIT(A) and later unsuccessfully before the ITAT. Subsequently, it approached the ITAT u/s 254(2) seeking rectification of the order of the Tribunal that in both the years, even though the sum of Rs.6,24,000/- (for 1998-1999) and Rs.14,05,331/- (fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the points raised before it. It would be placing an impossible burden on the Tribunal if it is ordained to rule upon aspects and contentions which were not raised by the parties before it or to deal with pleadings, evidence or material to which its pointed attention was not drawn in the course of the proceedings, and which lies buried in the forest of papers filed by the parties. The present case is typical. The assessee did not raise the point that there was double addition in the sense that though the amount was shown in its profit and loss account and in the return of income, still the assessing officer made a separate addition. This was a question of arithmetic, yet it was not raised either before the assessing authority or before the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em relief on the basis of such an expedition in exercise of the limited jurisdiction u/s 254(2) which confers upon the Tribunal only a power to rectify a mistake apparent from the record and not to indulge in a review. We are unable to accept the contention advanced before us on behalf of the assessee. that it somehow ought to have occurred to the Tribunal that there was a double addition, that it ought to have examined the record, found that in fact there was a double addition and granted relief to the assessee on that basis, when it did not occur to the assessee to raise this plea all through, though it was he who is aggrieved by the addition. He did not file any additional ground before the Tribunal, nor did he raise a specific plea that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
