9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 925X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-1-2020 - Shri N.K. Saini, Vice President And Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA For the Revenue : Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sr.DR ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present Misc. Applications (received on 22.10.2019) arising out of common order dated 21.05.2019 in ITA Nos. 265 266/Chd/2018 have been moved by the Department for assessment year 2014-15. 2. The common contention in both these Miscellaneous Applications read as under: That a search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the residential premises of the directors of the company on 24.10.2013. The assessment in this case was completed u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23.03.2016 at return income accepted. Further, penalty u/s 271AAB amounting to ₹ 7,00,000/- and ₹ 12,50,000/- was imposed on the assessees on the undisclosed income amounting to ₹ 70,00,000/- and ₹ 1,25,00,000/- in the case of Shri Sadhu Ram Rupal and M/s Marvel Dyers Processors Pvt Ltd, Ludhiana respectively admitted by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act by order dated 29.09.2016. Aggrieved, the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, our findings given in the former part of this order shall apply mutatis-mutandis. Accordingly the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271AAB of the Act and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) in this appeal is also deleted. 5. That the perusal of the records show that the Assessing Officer had forwarded the draft penalty order u/s 271AAB of the I.T.Act, 1961 for approval of JCIT, Central Range, Ludhiana as per the provisions of section 274 of the I.T.Act, 1961. The draft order was dated as 29.09.2016 and the approval was accorded by the JCIT ,Central Range, Ludhiana to the Assessing Officer vide letter No. 1033 1023 dated 30.09.2016 respectivley. Inadvertently, the date of order on the penalty order issued remained unchanged as 29.09.2016 whereas in the penalty order the Assessing Officer had clearly indicated that the prior approval under section 274(2) of the Income Tax Act was accorded by the Addl./Joint CIT, Central Range, Ludhiana vide his letter No. 1033 1023 dated 30.09.2016 respectively . Thus, the error in the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer is only typographical as the date recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 274(2) of the Income Tax Act. Also the above mentioned error in the penalty order is only typographical, which could be cured as per the provisions of Section 292B of the I.T.Act, 1961 which is produced as under:- No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. 8. That the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court while deciding the matter of Mulchand Rampuria Vs ITO(2001)252 ITR 758(Cal) has held that 'after enactment of section 292B which came into force on 01.10.1975, no notice shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission therein if the notice is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e approval was granted by the Joint Commissioner / Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Range on 30/09/2016 and the order dated 22/04/2019 was passed after considering those facts on record, so there is no mistake apparent from the record for the purpose of rectification under section 254 of the Act. In the present case it appears that the Department seeks the review of the order dt. 22/04/2019 in ITA Nos. 490 491/Chd/2018 for the A.Ys 2013-14 2014-15 respectively. It is well settled that a mistake apparent from the record can be rectified under section 254 of the Act, however the Tribunal has no power to review its own order. 5.1 On a similar issue the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kedia Leather and Liquor Ltd. reported in (2007) 293 ITR 95 held as under : Sub-section (2) of section 254 clearly empowers the Tribunal at any time within four years from the date of the order to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and amend any order passed by it under subsection(1) and to make such amendment if a mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or the Assessing Officer. However, the Tribunal cannot review its order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
