9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided the issue as follows : "7. We heard both sides in detail and examined the records of the case placed before us. The Assessing Officer has discussed the issue of additional income of Rs. 15 lakhs in a very detailed manner at pages 2 and 3 of his order. He has pointed out that the survey was carried out on 27.2.2008 and the major portion of the expenses had been booked by the assessee only after the said date of survey. He compared the details of the impugned assessment year 2008-09 with earlier four assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. The Assessing Officer has pointed out that the assessee has not claimed any expenditure by way of commission payments for those earlier four assessment years from 2004-05 to 2007-08. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. In order to overcome its deficiency, the assessee has come forward by disclosing the additional income of Rs. 15 lakhs over and above his regular income." 9. It is seen that the assessee has not maintained proper accounts. Then, how it is possible for the assessee to establish that he has incurred additional amount of expenditure that too after the date of survey? It is seen that the assessee has brought the additional amount of Rs. 15 lakhs through his capital account. The source of additional income of Rs. 15 lakhs is from the impugned business carried on by the assessee. When the said amount of Rs. 15 lakhs is attributable to the profits arose out of the impugned business, what is the basis of bringing Rs. 15 lakhs through assessee' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as additional income over and above his regular income from the business. Therefore, it is not permissible for the assessee to dilute the said amount of additional income by overstating the expenditure. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the Assessing Officer has rightly made an addition of Rs. 15 lakhs and the same has to be sustained. We set aside the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the issue of deleting the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs. The said addition is restored. The Assessing Officer shall revise the assessment. 13. In result, this appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed." 2.1 According to the ld. AR, sustaining the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs amounts to double addition as the same amount ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e settled issue by putting some arguments. In our opinion, if we consider the arguments of the assessee's counsel, it will amount to review of our earlier order of this Tribunal, for which, the Tribunal has no power. 4. It is well-settled that statutory authority cannot exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There is no express power of review conferred on this Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review does not extend to rehearing of the case on merit. It is held in the case of CIT vs. Pearl Woollen Millos (2011) 330 ITR 164/(2010) 191 Taxman 286 (Punj. & Har.) as under : "that the Tribunal could not re-adjudicate the matter under section 254(2). It is well settled that a statutory authority cannot exercise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tes rehearing and readjudication of the entire subject-matter of appeal. The dispute no longer remains restricted to any mistake sought to be rectified. Power to recall an order is prescribed in terms of Rule 24 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, and that too only in case where the assessee shows that it had a reasonable cause for being absent at a time when the appeal was taken up and decided ex parte. Judged in the above background the order passed by the Tribunal is indefensible. 6. The words used in section 254(2) are 'shall make such amendment, if the mistake is brought to its notice'. Clearly, if there is a mistake, then an amendment is required to be carried out in the original order to correct that particular mistake. The provision does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. However, considering the modus operandi followed by the assessee, the Tribunal has taken serious objection and reversed the order of the CIT(Appeals) and confirmed the addition of Rs. 15 lakhs. In our opinion, the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ramanlal Kamdar v. CIT (108 ITR 73), wherein it was held that once the assessee accepts certain addition before authorities, he cannot be said to be aggrieved by that addition and cannot appeal against it before the appellate authorities. Hence, we decline to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we reject the Misc. Application filed by the assessee. 8. In the result, the Misc. Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on Friday, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
