TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same was rejected and even the ld. representative of the assessee was duly heard on merits, under such circumstances it cannot be said that there was any mistake committed by the Tribunal which is apparent in the order - If the representative of the assessee had not filed the documents relied upon by it before the date of hearing itself, then he himself is responsible for the lapse or lack of due diligence - It cannot be said to be a case of any mistake apparent on the record. The shareholder would have independent right to contest such additions if so made by the AO but so far the assessee company is concerned, it has no locus-standi to contest the same - The assessee has sought the recalling of the order by way of seeking the review ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application for adjournment was not considered. It has been pleaded that during the course of hearing the ld. representative of the assessee namely Shri Rajnikant Chokshi, Chartered Accountant drew attention of the Members of the Tribunal that in the above noted appeal, the contention of the applicant/assessee company was that the amount given in the course of business had been treated as 'loans and advances' and therefore the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act had no application. It has been further pleaded that the Members of the Tribunal had informed the representative of the applicant that the said contention of the applicant would be considered. The appeal of the assessee company was decided by the Tribunal on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee company. It has been further contended that the CIT(A) accepted the alternate contention of the assessee/applicant and observed that the assessee was not a share holder in sister concern and the additions made by the AO in the case of the assessee were ordered to be deleted with further observation that the AO may consider making addition in case of share holder Shri H.M. Singh. Aggrieved from the order of the CIT(A) the assessee had come in appeal before the Tribunal with the following grounds of appeal: "a) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming that the transaction between the two companies is in the nature of a loan and not in the nature of a business transaction thereby invoking the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n para 7 of the application that the adjournment request made by Shri Rajnikant Chokshi, Chartered Accountant, ld. representative of the assessee was rejected by the Tribunal and thereafter the case was heard on merits. It is not the case of the assessee that Shri Rajnikant Chokshi, Chartered Accountant, was not the representative of the assessee or he was not competent to appear, plead or argue on behalf of the assessee. A perusal of the record reveals that a power of attorney was duly executed by the assessee in favour of partners of Chokshi Chokshi, Chartered Accountants including Shri Rajnikant Chokshi, Chartered Accountant. The alleged application was also moved by Shri Rajnikant Chokshi on behalf of Chokshi Chokshi Chartered Accou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the grounds of appeal itself. Moreover, in the alleged application for adjournment no such plea was raised that the assessee wanted to produce some other documents. The contentions raised by the assessee after hearing the ld. representative of the assessee were considered by the Tribunal and the contention of the assessee that the transaction in question was a business transaction has been rejected by the Tribunal. The scope of section 254(2) is very limited under which an order can be amended or rectified by the Tribunal where there is a mistake apparent on the record of the order. However, from the perusal of the impugned order, there appears no mistake apparent on the record. The ground that the assessee could not produce the rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in stating that the Assessing Officer may consider bringing to tax the deemed dividend in the hands of Mr. H. M. Singh, the shareholder having substantial interest in both the Companies without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The same be deleted." 7. The assessee perhaps deliberately did not reproduce the said ground while making the present application. The grievance of the assessee is perhaps relating to the finding of the CIT(A) further confirmed by the Tribunal that the AO may consider of making the additions in the hands of shareholder namely Shri H.M. Singh. 8. We may observe that the said 'Shri H.M. Singh' would have independent right to contest such additions i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
