9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal 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 receipts in cash or by cheques. The AO applied gross profit rate of 10% on the cheque amounts and taxed the entire amount of the cash amounting to Rs.42,36,667/- received as on money. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee was liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich 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. Whatever submissions were made by the learned Counsel for the assessee have been duly considered and considering the history of the case, profit rate of 15% was applied for cash amount as against profit rate of 10% applied for the cheques amount. It would, therefore, prove that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inted 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 Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ideal Engineering 251 ITR, 743, decision of the Hon'ble M. P. High Court in the case of Agarwal Warehousing and Leasing, 257 ITR 235 and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Adiyer Hotel, 294 ITR 155. ITAT Amritsar Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
