2010 (5) TMI 16 - HC - Income Tax

Search and Seizure - AO found that the evidence seized during the search established that the salary paid to the assessee had not been fully and truly disclosed by the employer company. Based upon the material sized during search the settlement application filed by the employer company and the order of CIT (A) in respect of earlier orders the Assessing Officer made certain additions to the salary disclosed by the assessee. The additions comprised Rs 76, 738/- on account of overtime Rs 3 36, 809/- on account of overheads being 45% of the salary and Rs. 28, 704/- on account of perquisites. He also made addition of Rs. 13, 55, 167/- on account of tax perquisites. - While dismissing the application filed by the Revenue the ITAT noted that during the course of hearing before it the Departmental Representative had conceded the fact that while allowing the appeal filed by the assessee the CIT(A) had followed the order of his predecessor in case of identically placed assessees. The Tribunal was of the view that the Departmental Representative having conceded that the issue was covered by the order passed in favour of identically placed assessees and the Reference Applications against its order having been rejected there was no ground for reviewing the order passed by it on 03rd August 2001. Held that it was fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the plea of difference in facts was not raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal. In these circumstances it is difficult for us to say that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that there was no error apparent from the record in the order passed by it on 03rd August 2001 revenue appeal dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for seeking rectification.
2. Addition of various amounts to the salary disclosed by the assessee during assessment proceedings.
3. Deletion of additions by the CIT(A) and subsequent appeals filed by the Revenue.
4. Application for rectification of the order by the Revenue.
5. Interpretation of Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act regarding rectification of mistakes apparent from the record.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was made against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) seeking rectification of the order dated 03/08/2001. The ITAT had dismissed the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue, which led to the subsequent legal proceedings.

2. During the assessment proceedings, various additions were made to the salary disclosed by the assessee based on evidence seized during a search at the employer company's premises. The additions included amounts for overtime, overheads, perquisites, and tax perquisites, leading to a dispute between the Revenue and the assessee.

3. The CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer, relying on previous decisions involving employees of the same company with similar cases. Subsequent appeals by the Revenue were dismissed by the ITAT and the High Court, highlighting the importance of consistency in legal arguments and raising issues before the appropriate authorities.

4. The Revenue filed an application for rectification of the order, claiming that the CIT(A) had given excessive relief to the assessee by deleting the tax perquisite amount. However, the ITAT dismissed the application, emphasizing the need for mistakes to be apparent from the record to warrant rectification under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act.

5. The interpretation of Section 254(2) was crucial in this case, as the Tribunal found no apparent error in its previous order and emphasized the importance of raising factual differences during legal proceedings. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved and the subsequent legal proceedings, highlighting the key arguments and decisions made by the authorities involved.