TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee could not substantiate existence of the said party - whether ld. CIT(A) reached this conclusion rightly or wrongly and whether balance sheet entry itself was sufficient to dislodge this conclusion is beyond the inherently limited scope of mistakes which can be rectified under section 154 of the Act - The scheme of section 154 of the Act does not permit correction of such errors, even if there is any error – the order of the CIT(A) upheld – Decided against Assessee. - ITA No.376/Agra/2013 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2014 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini And Shri Pramod Kumar,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri P. N. Agarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Smt. Anuradha, Jr. D.R. ORDER Per Pramod Kumar, Accountant Member: Thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yam Agro Industries. Shamli and the asesee was aked to why the same may not bee added within the provisions of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. Assessee, vide its reply dated 01.12.2010 stated as under:- In this account there was OB of Rs.2,08,400/- this is the remaining amount of goods purchased from party in the earlier year and duly entered in the earlier year. Against the said OB of Rs.2,08,400/- on amount of Rs.48,900/- repaid to him towards the goods purchased in earlier year and do not relate to the business activities done in this year i.e. no business activities is done in current year. I have considered the reply of the assessee and the assessee has not specifically pinpointed that why the addition be not made under the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. AR) and made oral arguments by relying on the discussion already made in the rectification application and he also referred to various case laws relating to the rectification of the appellate order in which, there are glaring and obvious mistake of law as well as fact and case laws relating to the interpretation of the provisions of section 41(1). After considering the written submission as well as oral arguments of the Ld. AR and considering the case laws referred by him, I have found that my predecessor Ld. CIT(A)-II, Agra has clearly held that provisions of section 41(1) can be invoked in case of the assessee (appellant) and confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.1,59,500/- out of the total amount of addition of Rs,2,08,400/- made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w is well settled that so far as rectification of mistake under section 154 is concerned, it is confined only to such mistakes which are glaring, obvious and incapable of two view being taken in respect of the same. The mistakes, even if any, which require long drawn process of reasoning on subjective issues are inherent outside the narrow scope of mistakes which can be rectified under section 154 of the Act. The authority for this proposition is contained in Hon ble Supreme Court s landmark judgement in the case of ITO vs. Volkat brothers, 82 ITR 50 wherein Their Lordships have observed that a decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record and that a mistake apparent on record must be obvious and patent mistake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
