Sh. T.C. Sood, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

MA 12/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6389 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BAN
• Keywords: Revision of order; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH FRIDAY: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MISC. APPLICATION NO.12/DEL/2011 (IN I.T.(SS)A.NO.40/DEL/2008) BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 1.04.1997 TO 13.05.2003 SHRI T.C. SOOD, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, 227, MUNIRKA, NEW DELHI. VS. CENTRAL CI RCLE-12, NEW DELHI. (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI ANIL SHARMA , ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. BAN ITA DEVI, DR. O R D E R PER A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND IN THIS MISC. APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE SOME MISTAKES IN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 30.11.2010. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSES SEE BEFORE US THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1.55 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF TWO FDRS OF RS.80,000/- AND RS.75,000/- ON THE BASIS TH AT THE NUMBER OF THESE TWO FDRS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS DIFFERENT AND FDRS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE OF SAME TWO AMOUNTS ARE HAVING DIFFERE NT NUMBERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A CERTIFICATE FROM CANARA BA NK DATED 24.11.2010 TO 2 CONTEND THAT FD NO. KD/6222 AND FD NO. 0497713 IS O NE AND THE SAME FD AND THE LATER NUMBER IS THE PRINTED SERIAL NUMBER O F STATIONERY OF FIXED DEPOSIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER PUT ACROSS ANY ENQUIRY WITH REGARD TO DIFFERENCE OF FIXED DEPOSIT NUMBER AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO OCCASI ON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. IT HAS BEEN SUBMI TTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THIS DIFFERENCE IN FD NUMBER WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT-DR FOR THE FIRST TIME AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND, THE REFORE, IT IS APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE TRIBUNALS ORDER WHICH IS TO BE RECT IFIED. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVEN UE THAT THE CONTENT OF MISC. APPLICATION IS NOT FOR RECTIFICATION OF MISTA KE BUT IT AMOUNTS TO REVISION OF ORDER, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED AND HENCE, THIS MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE REJECTED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE RECORD. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE NOTINGS ON THE ORDER-SHEET OF THE TRIBUNAL, THIS APPEAL WAS PARTLY HEARD ON 3 RD NOVEMBER, 2010 AND THE SAME WAS ADJOURNED FOR FURTHER HEARING ON 15.11.2010 AND, HENCE SUFFICIENT TIME WAS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE ASSESSEE TO BRING ON RECORD ALL FAC TS AND ARGUMENTS AND IN SPITE OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BRING ON RECORD THESE FACTS AND DOCUMENTS 3 WHICH ARE BEING SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WIT H MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC. 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER IS DATED 30.11.2010 BUT THE HEARING WAS CONCL UDED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 15.11.2010 WHEREAS THE CERTIFICATE OF CANARA BANK I S DATED 24.11.2010 I.E. AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING AND HENCE, ON THE B ASIS OF THIS CERTIFICATE FROM BANK, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS ANY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. REGARDING THE SECOND F D OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US DURING M ISC. APPLICATION PROCEEDINGS, A PHOTO COPY OF THE FD IN QUESTION OF RS.75,000/-. EVEN THIS WAS NOT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL BEFORE US. IT IS ADMITTED POSITION THAT BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL, LD. DR OF THE REVENUE HAS POINTED OUT THE DIFFERENCE IN FD NUMBER IN THE F.D. FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE F.D. WITH WHICH, THE ASSESSEE WAS TR YING TO EXPLAIN THE F.D. FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH. STILL, NO EXPLANATION W AS GIVEN IN COURSE OF HEARING IN THIS REGARD AND HENCE, THE TRIBUNAL REJE CTED THE EXPLANATION ON THIS BASIS THAT THE FDS FOUND IN SEARCH ARE DIFFERE NT FDS. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK OF 61 PAGES IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US BUT IN THE PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED A PH OTO COPY OF THIS FD OF PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK OR OF CANARA BANK. HENCE, EVE N IF SOME MISTAKES ARE THERE IN THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, THESE ARE NOT APPAR ENT MISTAKES WHICH CAN BE 4 RECTIFIED UNDER SEC. 254(2). THE REQUEST OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE MISC. APPLICATION AMOUNTS TO REVIEW OF TRIBUNALS ORDER W HICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER SEC. 254(2) AND HENCE, THIS MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATION OF THE ASSE SSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST APRIL, 2011. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (A.K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 21 ST APRIL, 2011. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPLICANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.