9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nor was the issue for adjudication before the CIT(A) and before the Tribunal. Therefore such a different issue which has no connection with the issue cannot be a matter of miscellaneous application as filed by the revenue u/s 254(2) of the Act. We note that the ld. DR has tried to raise a new issue which neither was before AO nor was the issue for adjudication before the Bench. Therefore considering these facts we do not think that there is a mistake apparent on record. It is a well settled position of law that in order to be a “mistake apparent from the record” of the case, it must be an error apparent, obvious and glaring. In the assessee’s case under consideration the Tribunal has considered the submissions of ld. DR for Revenue, as well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given below :- Party from where payment received Nature of Income/Receipt As per TDS Certificates As per Books of Account (P/L A/c) Receipt recorded books not in Hindalco Industries Ltd. Coal Transportation, Escalation & Mining Charges & Hiring charges 20,14,88,090/- Less:-Stated by assessee as having been shown as sales in A.Y.2005-06 62,14,539/- 19,52,73,551/- Less:-Stated by assessee as having been shown as advance for subsequent years 10,00,000/- Net Receipt for the A.Y.200607 19,42,73,551/- 18,85,82,510/- 56,91,041/- Tata Steel Ltd. (TISCO) Joda Cost Escalation & Mining Charges 1,01,40,742/- 66,82,249/- Less:- Stated by assesse as having been shown as sales in A.Y.2005-06 36,70,533/- ------ Net Receipt for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of credit of ₹ 12,45,974/- which the assessee itself has accepted as not reconciled, i.e. ₹ 69,37,015/- (Rs.56,91,041 + ₹ 12,45,974) clearly should have been considered as undisclosed income of the assessee; and these facts were not considered by Hon'ble ITAT. Therefore, order of the Hon'ble ITAT requires rectification. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that after completion of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act the assessee filed a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act on 09.01.2009, wherein the assessee submitted a reconciliation of total turnover as per TDS certificate and as per books of account. The said petition was subsequently rejected by the AO vide order dated 31.07.2009. Whil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO arrived at the figure of ₹ 56,91,041/- in the case of the party, M/s. Hindalco Industries Ltd and claimed that the aforesaid amount represents receipts not recorded in the books of account of the assesee during the relevant A.Y.2006-07. The ld. AO also placed reliance on the rectification petition filed by the assessee u/s 154 of the Act on 09.01.2009 and further considered a sum of ₹ 12,45,974/- as undisclosed income of the assessee in addition to the amount of R.56,91,041/- as stated above. We note that, taking into consideration the fact of the present case narrated as above, we are of the view that the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue u/s 254(2) of the Act, has not arisen out of the assessment order and cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... settled position of law that in order to be a "mistake apparent from the record" of the case, it must be an error apparent, obvious and glaring. Mere complexity of the problem or that some genuine argument is necessary to discover the error may not be sufficient to oust the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to rectify such mistake. Nonetheless, the mistake should be one which could be discerned with some precision after a judicial problem into the assessment records and other material, without long drawn process of reasoning and on which no two reasonable contrary opinions are conceivable. In the assessee's case under consideration the Tribunal has considered the submissions of ld. DR for Revenue, as well as the ld. AR for assessee. Submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
