TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deration of both the above decisions would result in a mistake apparent from record as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. [ 2008 (9) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT] . The learned Authorised Representative has also pointed out that the Tribunal has misquoted the share holding pattern of the assessee company by observing that 2% of shares were held by M/s. Shree Hanuman Jute Mills Private Limited which is also a mistake apparent from record. We are of the opinion that there is merit in the petition filed by the assessee. Since the mistakes goes to the root of the matter, we are of the view that impugned order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be recalled. Misc. Petition filed by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has lent money to the assessee. This observation of the Tribunal is factually incorrect and same requires rectification. 4. The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that Shri Hemanth Kumar Jalan also hold 19.89% of the shares in M/s. Shree Hanuman Jute Mills Private Limited. Hence Shri Hemanth Kumar Jalan is a common share holder in assessee company and in M/s. Shree Hanuman Jute Mills Private Limited. Hence the Assessing Officer had assessed the loan received by the assessee company from M/s. Shree Hanuman Jute Mills Private Limited as deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee company. The Hon'ble ITAT also confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt from record. 7. The learned Authorised Representative accordingly submitted that non-consideration of binding decisions of jurisdictional Karnataka High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court constitute mistake apparent on record as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. 305 ITR 227 (SC). Accordingly, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the impugned order of Tribunal dt.12.06.2018 deserves to be recalled. 8. On the contrary, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Tribunal has passed a reasoned order by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopalan Sons (HUF) Vs. CIT (supra) and hence there is no mistake ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhur Housing and Development Co. (supra). Hence non-consideration of both the above decisions would result in a mistake apparent from record as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT Vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (supra). The learned Authorised Representative has also pointed out that the Tribunal has misquoted the share holding pattern of the assessee company by observing that 2% of shares were held by M/s. Shree Hanuman Jute Mills Private Limited which is also a mistake apparent from record. 10. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there is merit in the petition filed by the assessee. Since the mistakes goes to the root of the matter, we are of the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
