9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to offer satisfactory cooperation toward the outlay of cost of Bungalow, the assessing officer accordingly made his endeavour to explore the true value of Bungalow. The legality of order passed under section 263 is also examined. In para-12 the order, it was noted that assessee raised some other connected grounds for leading the action of Commissioner of income tax; however, the representative of assessee not addressed those grounds. As noted that before passing the order learned Commissioner of Income tax, granted opportunity to the assessee, the assessee itself has not availed those opportunity, no reasons were explained as to why the assessee did not availed the opportunity, therefore, the remaining other grounds, though were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l MA s the applicant/ assessee has pleaded common grievances, the impugned order passed by our predecessor is common in all the appeal, thus, all application were heard and are decided by common order. For the sake of reference of contention on MA s the MA No. 13/SRT/ was treated as lead case. 2. At the outset the ld. Counsel for assessee submits that in MA. No.13/Srt/2017, there is certain factual mistake, about the nature of grounds raised in corresponding appeal, which has been corrected by filing fresh application, which may be taken on record for consideration. No new facts are pleaded in the fresh application except correcting the factual mistake. The ld Senior for the revenue has not seriously objected of correcting the factual mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No. 24 of 2016 in Saumya Construction. (iii) The order of the Tribunal is contrary to the ratio laid down by Jurisdictional High Court and this amounts to mistake apparent on record as held By Hon ble ApeX Court in ACIT Vs Saurashra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (305 ITR 227 SC). The assessees prayed for rectification of the order, or modify or recall the order. 4. The ld Counsel (AR) for the assessee besides relying on the contents of the application, submits that a search action was carried out at the group of assessee on 17th January 2007, no incriminating documents were seized during the search. The assessee disclosed ₹ 20 lakhs as unaccounted investment in Bungalow. At the fague end of the assessment proceeding, a reference was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 63 order and the consequent addition. The Tribunal has neither observed any specific incriminating material/document was found during the course of such nor commented upon applicability/non-applicability of Somaya construction case (supra). The Tribunal further object that assessee could not corroborate the cost of construction of Bangalore, however in the balance sheet at page number 10,53 and 90 paper book, Bungalow is specifically reflected. All bills/vouchers were produced during the assessment proceeding are further stated in the submission during assessment proceedings, copies of which were furnished. On the aforesaid submission the learned AR of the assessee prayed for recalling the order. 5. On the other hand the learned senior D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order passed by Tribunal cannot be recalled, as recalling of order would be review of the order, which is beyond the scope of application under section 254 (2) of the Act. The Tribunal has considered the case law relied by assessee. The application filed by assessee is misplaced and is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the rival contention about the parties and have gone through the order of Tribunal 20th April 2017. We have noted that our predecessor passed the order after considering all the material placed before the Tribunal. The submissions of both the parties were duly recorded in para-8 and 9 of the order. In para-10 of the order, detailed deliberations and discussion on various submissions are recorded. We have furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation of the facts and evidence. In our considered view, none of the contention raised in the present application required further indulgence under the scope of provision of section 254(2) of the Act. The assessee seeking review of the order which is beyond the scope of section 254(2) of the Act. Therefore, we do not find any merit or substance in the application filed by assessee for seeking rectification in the order dated 20th April 2017. In the result miscellaneous application filed by assessee is dismissed. 7. Considering the fact that assessee has raised common contention in all miscellaneous applications, common submission was made in all the applications, considering our decision in miscellaneous application number 13/Srt/201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
