9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was rejected by the assessing officer while completing the assessment. Therefore, to state that merely because the revised tax audit report was submitted later when the appeal was pending before the CIT(A), may not be a ground on which the learned Tribunal could have taken a different view. Tribunal has observed that the assessee could not point out any mistake as claimed in the tax audit report during the course of the assessment proceedings. This also is factually incorrect as mentioned by us above as the matter was brought to the notice of the assessing officer during the course of the assessment. Tribunal states that the copy of the remand report submitted by the AO could not be produced by both parties. Tribunal failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) and restoring the addition of Rs. 1,55,67,517/- made in the assessment on account of an arithmetical mistake and its purported findings in that behalf are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse ? We have heard Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel for the respondent. The issue is whether the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and restoring the addition of Rs. 1,55,67,517/- made in the assessment excluding the case of the assessee that it was on account of an arithmetical mistake. In the notes to accounts submitted by the assessee, in no.1 under the column `Finished Leather , the quanti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber, 2004 along with the auditor s certificate mentioning the original figure of available stock and the corrected figure of available stock drawing the figure of consumption in the original as well as the rectified report. Thus, the CIT(A) was convinced with the stand taken by the assessee that it is an arithmetical mistake in quantitative defects which were demonstrated before the CIT(A)duly supported by the auditor s certificate. The revenue carried the matter on appeal before the learned Tribunal which had reversed the order by the CIT(A)by the impugned order. On going through the order passed by the learned Tribunal more particularly paragraph 7 we find that the learned Tribunal has committed factual error which would render the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A). In any event, the assessee was able to establish the factual position as to how it was a genuine arithmetical mistake. In the absence of any material to show that it was not a genuine arithmetical mistake, the tribunal erred in non-suiting the assessee on the ground that the mistake ought to have been detected earlier by the assessee itself. Thus, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the tribunal for setting aside the order passed by the CIT(A)is incorrect as the learned tribunal has ignored the factual position which was available on record. For the above reasons, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The order passed by the learned tribunal is set aside and, consequently, the order passed by the CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
