9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be rectified u/s. 254(2) - the Tribunal have no power to review the order - the Revenue has failed to point out any mistake apparent from record – Decided against Revenue. - M. A. No. 35 /AHD/2013 (in ITA No. 2863/AHD/09) - - - Dated:- 16-5-2014 - Shri G. C. Gupta And Shri Anil Chaturvedi, A.M.,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P. L. Kureel, Sr. D. R. For the Respondent : Shri Manish Shah ORDER Per Shri Anil Chaturvedi,A. M. 1. By this Miscellaneous Application, Revenue has requested for recalling of the order dated 05-10-2012 passed by the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench-C in ITA.No.2863/Ahd/2009 for the Assessment Year 2006-07. In the Miscellaneous Application, the Revenue has submitted as under:- 3. On perusal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturned / repaid thereby arriving at the amount of Rs.31,46,500/-. However, as is evident from the above, the said amount of repaid / returned amounts have not been included in the calculation of the amounts of Rs.14,69,500/- 41,16,000/-Reduction granted for Rs.24,39,000/- is part of original addition of Rs. 1,32,57,366/- which has not been confirmed by the ITAT. The reduced amount of Rs.24,39,000/- is from Rs.41,16,000/- which is to be taxed being amount paid for expenditure of which source is not explained. So the ITAT has in principle wrongly allowed reduction from amount which was already paid for unaccounted expenditure. This amount was not brought to tax u/s.68 of the Act, so could not have been reduced from amount of unexplained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidering the amounts repaid/returned to the partners and the net figure of expenses worked out to Rs 31,46,500/-. This figure was also checked and confirmed by the Revenue. The Ld AR submitted that instead of addition of Rs 1,32,56,366/- made by the AO the addition could be made of Rs 31,46,500/-. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the addition made by the AO by restricted to Rs 31,46,500/- instead of Rs 1,32,57,366/- made by him. We therefore direct accordingly..... (emphasis supplied) 4. It is thus seen that the working of the addition was confirmed by both the parties before the Tribunal. Further the Revenue could not point out any apparent mistake of the Tribunal which needs correction. Further, a mistake capable of r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
