9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 1407X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly, he rectified the mistake. With regard to the admission of petition under section 154 it is not the case of the Department that the ld. CIT(A) has not conferred upon the powers to rectify any mistake apparent on record and was done so, which requires interference of the Tribunal. The rectification order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is within the time limit provided under relevant provisions of section and not barred by limitation. Thus, the case law relied on by the Department has no application and warranted. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the rectification order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment years. Disallowance on inflation in purchases not claimed in the assessee’s petition for rectification - Held that:- In the rectification order CIT(A) has mentioned that “25% disallowance in the original appellate order for inflation of purchases in respect of villages where banks are not available is to be retained”. This direction was given on the context that even if bank is not available disallowance cannot be made, but, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee has inf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in directing the Assessing Officer to identify the villages at Nandambakkam, Ramapuram and Puduvayol and verify the availability of banking facility therein. 2.1 The Id.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that this procedure of effecting disallowance / deleting disallowance has already been done by the Assessing Officer while giving effect-to the order dt. 12.06.2015 in ITA No. 202-208/14-15 of the then Id. CIT(A). 2.2 The Id. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that his direction to verify allowability of assessee's claim tantamounts to his admission that he could not conclusively decide himself, that there is an apparent mistake in the order of his predecessor and that the issue is debatable calling for further enquiry. 2.3 The ld. CIT(A) is not justified in entertaining the assessee's request for reconsidering his predecessor's decision in the garb of rectifying any mistake which was in fact, not apparent from record. 2.4 The ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the issue has already been dealt with by his predecessor vide his order in ITA Nos. 202-208/14-15 dt. 12.06.2015, and considering the plea of the assessee in this regard only tantamounts to review ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions under section 40A(3) of the Act by virtue of satisfying the exceptions provided in Rule 6DD(g) of IT Rules and also determined the difference in payment of consideration at ₹.6,36,66,379/-, which was not admitted in the return of income for the assessment year 2008-09. Against the appellate order dated 12.06.2015, the assessee filed rectification petition under section 154 of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) with regard to the facts not considered while adjudicating on the issues. By admitting the rectification petition filed by the assessee and considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) rectified certain mistake apparent on record and also directed the Assessing Officer to give set off (deduction) with regard to the protective assessment made for the assessment year 2008-09. 2.1 It was the submission of the ld. DR that the ld. CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to review the appellate order already passed by the ld. CIT(A) vide his order dated 12.06.2015, which is beyond the scope of provisions of section 154 of the Act. It was also the submission that without conducting enquiries or remanding the issue to the Assessing Officer, the rectification order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-section in relation to any matter other than the matter which has been so considered and decided. (2) Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned- (a) may make an amendment under sub-section (1) of its own motion, and (b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee, and where the authority concerned is the Commissioner (Appeals), by the Assessing Officer also. (3) An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this section unless the authority concerned has given notice to the assessee of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (4) Where an amendment is made under this section, an order shall be passed in writing by the income-tax authority concerned. (5) Subject to the provisions of section 241, where any such amendment has the effect of reducing the assessment, the Assessing Officer shall make any refund which may be due to such assessee. (6) Where any such amendment has the effect of enhancing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facilities exist in the villages. However, during the course of rectification proceedings, by considering the village map and verification of document copies to indicate survey numbers and village numbers, certificate of Village Administrative Officer, etc., which are located in other districts of Tamil Nadu, where the assessee has originally made the purchases and payments made in cash, since there was no banking facility at that time, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that there is mistake crept in the appellate order dated 12.06.2015 and accordingly, he rectified the mistake. 4.3. However, with regard to the admission of petition under section 154 of the Act by the ld. CIT(A), by relying on the decision in the case of South India Surgical Co. (P) Ltd. v. ACIT 263 ITR 5 (Mad), it was the contention of the Department that only an higher appellate forum shall entertain the specific grounds for adjudication. In the case of South India Surgical Co. (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (supra), the specific ground not adjudicated by the Tribunal was raised before the Hon ble High Court and in fact, become question of law and, the Hon ble High Court has directed the Tribunal to adjudicate the ground. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 20 was 25%, which was again directed to be retained. The Department has not brought any material on record to consider the percentage of inflation of purchase cost either 25% or 32.58%. Otherwise also, the above said ground has no legs to stand before the Tribunal since the above issue has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal from para 11 to 15 vide its order dated 19.02.2016 in I.T.A. Nos. 1570 to 1576/Mds/2016 (assessee s appeal) and I.T.A. Nos. 1998 to 2004/Mds/2015 (Revenue s appeal) passed against the order of the ld. CIT(A) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 12.06.2015 much before filing of the above appeals by the Revenue on 04.03.2016. Hence, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment years. 6. The Revenue also raised a ground for the assessment year 2008-09 that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹.6,36,66,379/- made by the Assessing Officer protectively. 6.1 We have heard rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of the assessment order for the assessment year 2007-08, with regard to the sum of ₹.6,36,66,379/-, the Assessing Officer has held as under: T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
