| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 7869 (Asr-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 254(2)
Tribunal in view of contrary Tribunal in view of contrary material available on record and which was not denied by the assessee but in fact admitted by the assessee, had dealt with inconsistent stand only but not otherwise and left it open to CIT(A) to decide afresh without being influenced by any observation made in its order. Even liberty was given to the assessee to agitate the original ground of appeal as raised before CIT(A). Thus, it was beyond understanding as to what prejudice had been caused to assessee and what error was apparent from the record which required rectification under section 254(2). Accordingly, Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee stood dismissed.
|
Appeal (Tribunal) - Rectification under section 254(2) - No mistake apparent and no prejudice caused to assessee -
AO made addition under section 68 on account of unexplained bank deposits. Assessee challenged this by way of appeal before CIT(A). Assessee though filed its reply but did not appear regularly befroe CIT(A) therefore, on the basis of reply, CIT(A) decided appeal against the, assessee as ex parte. Assessee challenged order of CIT(A) and submitted that assessee had entered into an agreement, for sale of immovable property with one 'H' and received Rs. 50 lakhs as earnest money in cash, out of which impugned amount of Rs. 36 lakhs was deposited in bank account of his wife, therefore, Revenue Department could have made addition in her assessment only but at any stretch of imagination, the amount of Rs. 36,00,000 could not be added in income of assessee, Tribunal remanded the case of CIT(A) for decision afresh. Without going into further controversy and deciding the case on merit. Assessee by way of Miscellaneous Application, filed under section 254(2) sought rectification of order of Tribunal by amendment in accordance with law. Held: From assessee's reples it clearly reflected that assessee categorically took the stand that amount of Rs. 36 lacs did not belong to assessee's wife but belonged to assessee himself. From categorical acceptance on the part of assessee the argument to the effect that as amount of Rs. 36 lacs was found in accounts of assessee's wife could hve been subjected to addition in assessee's wife assessment only, was devoid of merits. Tribunal in view of contrary material available on record and which was not denied by the assessee but in fact admitted by the assessee, had dealt with inconsistent stand only but not otherwise and left it open to the CIT(A) to decide afresh without being influenced by any observation made in its order. Even liberty was given to the assessee to agitate the original ground of appeal as raised before CIT(A). Thus, it was beyond understanding as to what prejudice had been caused to assessee and what error was apparent from the record which required rectification under section 254(2). Accordingly, Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee stood dismissed.
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assessee.
A.Y. : 2011-12
IN THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|