Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 587 - AT - Income TaxScope of rectification of mistake - Addition to the closing stock - adopting cost of goods at the year end OR Cost or realisable value -Held that:- The Tribunal in earlier occasion fairly considered the entire arguments of the assessee and has given a finding and decided the issue against the assessee. Now, the assessee’s counsel wants to re-argue the settled issue by putting some arguments. In our opinion, if we consider the arguments of the assessee’s counsel, it will amount to review of our earlier order of this Tribunal, for which, the Tribunal has no power. An order under section 254(2) does not have existence de hors the order under section 254(1). Re-calling of the order is not permissible under section 254(2). Recalling of an order automatically necessitates rehearing and re-adjudication of the entire subject-matter of appeal. It is well-settled that statutory authority cannot exercise power of review unless such power is expressly conferred. There is no express power of review conferred on this Tribunal. Even otherwise, the scope of review does not extend to rehearing of the case on merit.In view of the above, we are inclined to reject the arguments of the assessee’s counsel on the issue of valuation of closing stock in all these Misc. Applications. - Decided against assessee Addition towards stock discrepancies - Held that:- Tribunal has considered the issue in dispute and categorically given a finding and decided the issue against the assessee and there is no reason to recall the earlier order of the Tribunal. Being so, as discussed in earlier para, we are inclined to reject the arguments of the ld. AR in all these three Misc. Applications, on this issue. - Decided against assessee Disallowance towards lease commitment charges - Held that:- Tribunal has given a finding that the expenditure of Rs. one crore incurred by the assessee towards lease commitment charges cannot be considered as wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Hence, it is decided against the assessee. Now, the assessee’s counsel wants to re-argue the case and it cannot be possible. As discussed in earlier para, we are inclined to reject the arguments of the ld. AR in all these three Misc. Applications, on this issue also. - Decided against assessee Addition towards unexplained jewellery - Held that:- As unsigned copy of grounds on our records, wherein the assessee raised unexplained jewellery u/s.69A of the Act. Being so, we are not in a position to uphold the argument of the assessee’s counsel.- Decided against assessee
|