Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 1407 - ITAT CHENNAIRectification of mistake u/s 154 - erroneous remand report of the Assessing Officer during the course of appellate proceedings of availability of bank branches in the villages Nandambakkam, Ramapuram and Puduvayal - Held that:- CIT(A) considered the issue, in fact, it was the actual fact that because of similar village names, the Assessing Officer got confused in his remand report since similar villages exist inside the city of Chennai and went in wrong assumption that banking facilities exist in the villages. However, during the course of rectification proceedings, by considering the village map and verification of document copies to indicate survey numbers and village numbers, certificate of Village Administrative Officer, etc., which are located in other districts of Tamil Nadu, where the assessee has originally made the purchases and payments made in cash, since there was no banking facility at that time, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that there is mistake crept in the appellate order dated 12.06.2015 and accordingly, he rectified the mistake. With regard to the admission of petition under section 154 it is not the case of the Department that the ld. CIT(A) has not conferred upon the powers to rectify any mistake apparent on record and was done so, which requires interference of the Tribunal. The rectification order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is within the time limit provided under relevant provisions of section and not barred by limitation. Thus, the case law relied on by the Department has no application and warranted. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the rectification order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment years. Disallowance on inflation in purchases not claimed in the assessee’s petition for rectification - Held that:- In the rectification order CIT(A) has mentioned that “25% disallowance in the original appellate order for inflation of purchases in respect of villages where banks are not available is to be retained”. This direction was given on the context that even if bank is not available disallowance cannot be made, but, the ld. CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assessee has inflated the purchase cost of the land in its books of account, as there was no banking facilities exist and therefore, the percentage of inflation as arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) based on the analysis made in Table A of appellate order dated 12.06.2015 at page 20 was 25%, which was again directed to be retained. The Department has not brought any material on record to consider the percentage of inflation of purchase cost either 25% or 32.58%. Otherwise also, the above said ground has no legs to stand before the Tribunal since the above issue has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 12.06.2015 much before filing of the above appeals by the Revenue on 04.03.2016. Hence, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed for all the assessment years. Addition made by AO protectively - Held that:- ₹.6,33,66,379/- has been assessed substantively in the hands of the assessee in the assessment year 2007-08 as well as protectively in the assessment year 2008-09. Once the undisclosed income of the assessee is assessed to tax substantively in the assessment year 2007-08, the same amount cannot be again assessed in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 2008-09 and corresponding set off should be granted in the assessment year 2008-09 so that the said income is not assessed twice. The ld. DR has not given any valid reason for deleting the protective assessment once again made in the assessment year 2008-09 by the ld. CIT(A) - decided against revenue
|