9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l are based on due analysis of the facts as well as the evidence which is not in dispute. Therefore, it is a decision of the Tribunal which is now sought to be reviewed or revised in the present proceedings under section 254(2). Hence the relief sought by the assessee in the Miscellaneous Application is beyond the provisions of section 254(2) as the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is very limited and circumscribed to rectify the apparent mistake on record and not to review or revise the order passed on merit. Even otherwise, the impugned order challenged by the assessee may be an error of decision but it is not a mistake apparent on record to be reviewed under section 254(2). - Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 to 11 as under :- 4. Ground No. 2 relating to the scrap sales has been adjudicated by your honors at para 5 onwards. 5. One of the arguments raised on behalf of the assessee was that with respect to rate of scrap sales independent enquiries were also made by the AO, however the findings of these enquiries and investigations conducted in this aspect were never provided to the assessee, inspite of the assessee s specific requests. 6. The said contention was also raised before the CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) in para 6.8 of his order dated 6.5.2014 has held that :- .. Further, AO has not brought on record any other material or conducted an enquiry to establish the receipt of money out of the books on sale of scrap . ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in ground no. 2 and 4, the Tribunal has given its finding in para 7, 13 and 13.1 as under :- 7. We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. So far as the understatement of scrap sale in respect of the billed amount of ₹ 19,13,089/- against the actual receipt of ₹ 30,02,650/- is concerned, the said fact was duly manifested in the impugned material and, therefore, the assessee has accepted the said understatement of scrap sale. The AO applied the said rate of understatement being 56.95% on the entire scrap sale made by the assessee during the year under consideration. However, we note that the assessee has sold scrap during the year of different materials and at different rates. The scra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts can be verified and then only to the extent of the same rate and same item of scrap sale will be considered for making the addition on account of under billing. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside this issue to the record of the AO for proper verification of the facts and identify the particular item of scrap sale found recorded in the loose papers impounded during the course of survey and then apply the same rate in respect of the scrap sale of the same item which is shown by the assessee sold at the rate as mentioned in the corresponding bill. Needless to say, the assessee be given an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order on this issue. 13. We have considered the rival submiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreed rate and the expenses claimed in the books was already surrendered by the assessee, therefore, the AO has made the addition of ₹ 5,85,323/-. The assessee has objected to the extrapolating of this difference to the entire freight charges which is accepted by the ld. CIT (A) and deleted the said addition. 13.1. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, when the assessee has admitted the over-inflated claim of freight charges as found in the loose papers for the months of April to August in respect of the payment made to one transporter, namely, Haryana Rajasthan Roadlines, the said rate of inflated expenses on account of freight charges can be applied in respect of the freight charges claimed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p sale made by the assessee to the said party and cannot be expended to the sale made to the other parties. Similarly, in case of freight charges, the assessee has accepted the difference of the freight bill and actual expenditure as reproduced in para 13 of the impugned order and this is not a single isolated transaction but these are number of transactions. Therefore, the Tribunal found it proper that the freight charges paid to one party in respect of which the impounded material has shown the difference of expenditure claimed and bill amount as per the loose papers, the same difference can be applied in respect of the total freight charges paid to the same party and not to the other parties, hence the issue was again set aside to the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
