9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hase of jewellery. In this situation, we observe that the AO wrongly observed that the assessee surrendered income of ₹ 24,14,144/- on account of jewellery as undisclosed income and it was a mistake apparent from record in the light of statement of assessee recorded on oath during the search proceedings on 28.9.2007. Thus we come to a conclusion that the AO as well as CIT(A) were wrong in holding that there is no mistake apparent from record. Per contra, we are inclined to hold that there was a glaring mistake on the face of record in the light of statement of the assessee recorded on oath which could have been rectified by the AO by allowing application of the assessee filed u/s 154 of the Act but the AO as well as CIT(A) failed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepting the mistake which was apparent, obvious, patent, evident, visible, clear misunderstanding, misconception, understand wrongly and not dependent on elaboration or argument. Hence order passed is unjustified. 3. That on the facts and the circumstance of the case and in law, the honest mistake of the appellant is covered u/s 154 and the assessment order is liable to be corrected. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the AO completed assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act by passing order dated 31.12.2009. Subsequently, the assessee filed application u/s 154 of the Act before the AO which was rejected by passing order dated 03.03.2010. The relevant observations and conclusion of this order passed u/s 154 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m other sources amounting to ₹ 24, 77, 798/- and till the order assed u/s 143(3) on 31.12.2009, neither any revised return nor an rectification application was file by you. Besides, during the course of assessment proceedings when you were asked to explain misc. income of ₹ 24,14,144/-,your authorized representative informed that such amount represent jewellery, which had been shown as Other income. In the light of above facts, it becomes clear that since there is no mistake which is apparent from records, therefore no action U/s 154 is warranted. Accordingly, your application filed u/s 154 of the LT. Act, 1961 is hereby rejected. 3. Now, the aggrieved assessee is before this Tribunal with the grounds as reproduced herein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC) and submitted that the Hon ble Apex Court has dilated on the term an error apparent from record to be one which is an error which depends for its discovery on elaborate arguments on question of fact or law. The AR also placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 463(SC) and submitted that a similar view has been expressed that for invoking jurisdiction u/s 154 of the Act, for exercising power of rectification of mistake, it is a condition precedent that the mistake must be glaring and obvious . The AR pointed out that the AO ignored statement of the assessee recorded on oath on the date of search specially answer to question no. 14 and submitted that the AO took a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
