9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... qua grounds no.1 and 2 are concerned, the Tribunal in the impugned order had detailed discussion from page nos.1 to 5 of the order and came to conclusion to restrict the disallowance to 20% of the purchases made from the partners and relative of the partners. 80% of the purchases made by the assessee have been allowed. Addition on account of suppression in the value of closing stock is concerned, the Tribunal has discussed the issue and noticed well reasoned order of the CIT(A), and thereafter following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. [2007 (5) TMI 195 - SUPREME COURT] came to the conclusion that valuation of closing stock adopted by the assessee was purely adhoc method and without a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come. ( b) Partners in turn disclosed share in HUF income in their individual returns and claimed the same as exempt u/s 10(2). ( c) Income claimed exempt u/s 10(2) has not been disturbed by the Assessing Officer while making assessment. ( d) Purchases from the partners and relatives were made at market rate and comparable purchase vouchers along with chart were furnished indicating no excess payment to the partners and relatives. e) There was complete quantity tally on day to day basis. f) There was no rejection of book results. 1.2 It is therefore, submitted that 20% disallowance has been sustained by Hon'ble Tribunal while adjudicating ground Nos.1 and 2 without taking into account the above sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rectified. The ld.DR on the other hand submitted that all issues pointed out by the assessee in MA have already been dealt with by the Tribunal in its detailed order, and therefore, no further adjudication is required. The assessee by filing MA is trying to review the order which is not permissible in law. Once the Tribunal decided the issue and passed order, it becomes final and Tribunal cannot sit on for reviewing its order. 4. We have considered rival submissions and gone through the record carefully. We find that the power of rectification under section 254 of the Income Tax Act can be exercised only when the mistake, which is sought to be rectified, is an obvious patent mistake and apparent from the record and not a mistake, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
