2003 (7) TMI 728

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o him and he should reconsider his views and discuss the evidence which has been brought on record in the form of paper book. In our view, there is nothing wrong in the observations in the earlier order and at least it cannot be said that there was an apparent mistake in the order dated 29‑10‑1993 which can be corrected on application u/s 254(2) of the Income-tax Act. In our view, there is nothing wrong in the observations in the earlier order and at least it cannot be said that there was an apparent mistake in the order dated 29‑10‑1993 which can be corrected on application u/s 254(2). In our considered opinion, the Tribunal has committed error in upholding the view of the CIT(A), after specific observations that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 132(5) as well as the assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted explanation regarding both these discrepancies, but the Assessing Officer rejected the assessee s explanation and added ₹ 92,535 as unexplained cash and ₹ 90,680 as unexplained silver ornaments weighing 31.706 kgs. as total income of the assessee. 4. On appeal, the CIT(A) deleted both the additions. This is with regard to assessment year 1985-86. For the assessment year 1986-87, the Assessing Officer found some discrepancy in the stocks and sales of silver ornaments. After considering all the aspects, he made a net addition of ₹ 1,23,545 on account of this discrepancy. Out of this, the CIT(A) sustained this addition of ₹ 15,000. 5. In appeal before .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g Officer and which were relevant to the issue before CIT(A). Thereafter, miscellaneous applications have been moved and the Tribunal has, on those miscellaneous applications, just upheld the view of the CIT(A), whereby the CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee. When, at one stage, the Tribunal has taken the view that the CIT(A) has not properly looked into the papers in the paper book which was submitted to him and he should reconsider his views and discuss the evidence which has been brought on record in the form of paper book. In our view, there is nothing wrong in the observations in the earlier order and at least it cannot be said that there was an apparent mistake in the order dated 29‑10‑1993 which can be corrected on a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X