TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was communicated to the assessee - The creditor was not assessed in the relevant AY, and, its capacity has also not been proved on a prima facie basis - the genuineness of the transaction has obviously not been established – assessee by means of the rectification application has attempted to re-adjudicate the factum of existence of the firm M/s Vardhman Trading Company which has already been held to be a fictitious and bogus firm - Thus the finding recorded by the authorities and the Tribunal attained finality regarding transaction pertaining to M/s Vardhman Trading Company - To invoke the provisions of Section 254(2) of the Act, there must be an error apparent on the face of record – the Tribunal has no power to review its own order - In e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , accordingly made an addition of ₹ 5,55,000/- under section 68 of the Act in the hands of the petitioner. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated 25.12.1998, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar. The appeal was allowed and remanded to the Assessing Officer to decide the case a fresh on the basis of the observation made in the appellate order relating to the additions made in the hands of the petitioner pertaining to unsecured loan of M/s Vardhman Trading Company and others, (the controversy is confined only to the unsecured loan of M/s Vardhman Trading Company). On remand, the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the petitioner and held that the ide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relevant assessment year and, therefore, its capacity has also not been proved on a prima facie basis. On the other hand, deposits in case on the date of lending goes against the assessee in respect of proving the creditworthiness. In view of these findings, the genuineness of the transaction has obviously not been established. Therefore, we are of the view that the ld. CIT (Appeal) rightly brought this amount to tax. This, ground no.2 is dismissed. According to the petitioner, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has not considered the documentary evidences while deciding the appeal, non consideration of such evidences are mistake of facts and law, thus is rectifiable. The petitioner accordingly on 22.3.2002 made an application under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
