TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 16X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uisites. - 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 differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany in which the assessee was employed. He 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. 3. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT(A), relyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .No. 240/Del/05 was, thereafter, filed by the Revenue stating therein that the assessee himself had disclosed tax perquisite, amounting to Rs 8,36,319/- in the return filed by him and even that amount was deleted by the CIT(A), thereby giving excessive relief to the assessee. The Revenue, accordingly, sought rectification of the mistake alleged to have been committed by the Tribunal, while passing the order dated 03rd August, 2001. 7. 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 as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01, was actually made by the Departmental Representative. The Departmental Representative having conceded that the facts of the case of the assessee were identical to the facts of other assessees and the Tribunal having proceeded on that basis, we find no error apparent in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 3rd August, 2001. 10. While considering the application of the Revenue under Section 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal could not have gone into those facts which had already been conceded before it by the Departmental Representative. If the facts of the case of this assessee were different from the facts of the cases of other employees of this company, as is now sought to be contended by the Revenue, the alleged difference in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
