9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 780X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT, Amritsar Bench. But the ITAT Amritsar Bench has passed the speaking order in this issue. The recalling the observation of a speaking order of ITAT is beyond the jurisdiction of Bench. So, the MA application of the revenue is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year under consideration i.e. 2013-14, the GP declared by the assessee is 83,64,009 and that by the ITAT is 2,28,540 which is much below than the declared by the assessee himself. e) Thus inspite of rejecting the books of account which was upheld by the CIT(A) and Hon'ble ITAT bench also, the true profits determined remain lower than the profit declared by the assessee for the A.Y. 2008-09, 2012-13 and 2013-14 due to the error of applying GP rate to gross purchase while the formula relied upon by ITAT worked out by the Ld. CIT(A) applied the GP rate to Net purchase. f) The profit rate applied by the Ld. CIT(A) in his order date 03.03.2014 vide para 6.9 to net purchase ; -on higher side as the profit when calculated as percentag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record. In argument the revenue let to inform that the rectification was required to relate this order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench. But the ITAT Amritsar Bench has passed the speaking order in this issue. The ld. counsel during hearing relied on the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble Apex Court in these cases. The following observation of the Hon'ble Courts are extracted as below: "8. Similarly, the same view has been held by jurisdictional Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Popular Engg. Co Vs. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reported in 119 Taxmann 51 has held as under: "Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it has taken into account all relevant materials and has not taken into account any irrelevant material in basing its conclusions, the decision of the Tribunal is not liable to be interfered with, unless, of course. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are perverse. It was not necessary for the Tribunal to state in its judgment specifically or in express words that it had taken into account the cumulative effect of the circumstances or had considered the totality offacts, if the judgment of the Tribunal showed that it had, in fact, done so. Thus, there was no reason to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal was to be dismissed, (please refer page no 20-28 of judgement set" 4. We respectfully reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
