Utkal Refineries Ltd., Cuttack V. CIT, Cuttack, Cuttack

MA 15/CTK/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2965 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-08-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B PANDA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH , CUTTACK , . . , BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV , J M & SHRI B.P.JAIN , A M ./ M.A.NO . 15 / CTK /20 1 4 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 63 /CTK/2013) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 0 9 ) M/S UTKAL REFINERIES LTD., AT NEW INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, JAGATPUR, DISTRICT CUTTACK VS. CIT, CUTTACK - 753012 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A AACU 6063 A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.PANDA /REVENUE BY : SHRI K.K.NATH / DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 ND MAY , 201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 TH MA Y ,201 5 / O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV (J.M) : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 27 - 6 - 2014 , PASSED IN ITA NO. 63 /CTK/201 3 WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE OR DER OF THE CIT, PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN THE FIGURE OF DIFFERENT IATION AMOUNT OF RS.19,42,932/ - , WHICH WAS TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT IN PLACE OF C REDIT FIGURE OF RS. 7,22,000/ - AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET. THEREFORE, AN ERROR HAS BEEN CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH CALL S FOR RECTIFICATION. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CANDIDLY ADMITTED THAT AT THE TIME O F HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE BALANCE SHEET IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THE CORRECT FIGURE M.A NO.15/14 2 OF UNSECURED LOAN. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, NECESSARY RECTIFICATION MAY BE MADE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS THE BALANCE SHEET AND ALL RELEVANT RECORD WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS OPPOSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT DOCUMENT AVAILABLE BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE CALLED TO BE THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL. ONLY THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE CAN BE THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL . S INCE NOTHING HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO DEMONST RATE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FIGURE OF DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.19,42,932/ - , T HE TRIBUNAL HAS ADOPTED THE SAME WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, NO RECTIFICATION IS CALLED FOR. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINE D THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL VIS - - VIS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT THE CIT HAS ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF RS.19,42,932/ - , WHICH WAS TO BE TREATED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT AND THERE WAS NO OTHER EVID ENCE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DIFFERENT FIGURE CAN BE ADOPTED IN PLACE OF RS. 19,42,932/ - . NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FIRST TIME DURING THE COURSE HEARING OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION. 5. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE MISTAKE U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT CAN ONLY BE RECTIFIED WHICH IS APPARENT AND GLARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT M.A NO.15/14 3 DISPUTED THE FIGURE ADOPTED BY THE CIT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. NOW, HE WANTS TO RECTIFY THE FIGURE OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. EVEN FROM THE BALANCE SHEET THIS FIGURE IS NOT VISIBLE. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND NO ERROR APPA RENT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IF THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE FIGURE ADOPTED BY THE CIT, THE ASSESSEE MAY ADOPT THE RECOURSE BY APPROACHING THE CIT FOR RECTIFICATION IN THE ORDER. FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE IS REQUIRED TO SATISFY THE CIT WITH RELEVANT MATERIAL. IN ANY CASE RECTIFICATION SOUGHT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT PERMISSIBLE U/S.254(2) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE SAME. 6 . IN THE RESULT, MISC ELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26/05 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . . ) ( B. P. JAIN ) ( ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 26/05 /2015 . . /PKM , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT , CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//