TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal dated 17th September, 2010. 2. The assessee raised several grounds of appeal in both the appeals for assessment year 1985-86 and 1987-88. The order of the Tribunal reveals that the learned Counsel appearing for the assessee at that time did not press several grounds of appeal and only argued on working of profit on cash portion. In this case, during the course of search it was found that the assessee had received cash as well as cheques while selling properties constructed by him. The assessee agreed to the earning of unaccounted income with regard to sale of the properties which have not been disclosed to the revenue department. In the assessment year 1985-86, the AO issued show cause notice asking the assessee to offer tax on recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lication of 15% profit rate on cash amount received as on money as is held by the Tribunal. 4. The learned DR submitted that since the learned Counsel for the assessee only pressed for one issue of application of profit rate on the cash portion during the course of arguments which have been considered and decided on merit, therefore, both the Misc. Applications of the assessee are not maintainable. There is no mistake apparent on record. 5. We have considered the rival submissions and do not find any merit in both the Misc. Applications of the assessee. The learned Counsel for the assessee appearing at the time of argument of both the appeals did not press the grounds of appeals except arguing on the profit rate on cash portion. Whateve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration while deciding both the appeals. The learned Counsel for the assessee who argued the main appeals did not dispute the quantum of cash received as on money in both the assessment years and also did not dispute the year of taxing the unaccounted income. No mistake is pointed out in the same. It therefore, appears that due to change of the Counsel the assessee filed the frivolous Misc. Applications despite getting substantial relief from the Tribunal. The Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Anamika Builders, 251 ITR 585, held that Tribunal should not change the view already taken in the matter . It is also well settled law that Tribunal has no power to review its earlier orders. We rely upon the decision of the Hon ble And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
