9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing contentions:- "BACKGROUND: 2. In this case the assessee had filed return of income on 15/10/2015 by declaring the total income at Rs 22,61,233/-. The AO found that the appellant had made a cash deposit of Rs 31,50,200/- on various dates in his saving bank accounts. The AO had rejected the appellant's claim of receipt of cash of Rs 17,25,000/- from Mr Rahul U. Murhe for making the cash deposits in bank The AO had assessed it as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act 1961. The AO passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act 1961 on 26/12/2016 by assessing the income at Rs 39,86,230/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing the particulars of income. Subsequently the AO passed pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its order dated 24.08.2022 stated that in the quantum appeal ITA No 1615/Pun/2018 the assessee has raised his additional ground(s) that the impugned assessment itself is not valid as the Assessing Officer has not converted it from a "limited" to "complete one as per the CBDT Circular No. 20 of 2015. Though, the Revenue raised vehement objections to admission of the assessee's instant additional ground, noting that the issue was a legal one wherein all the relevant facts are already on record in assessee's paper book running into 64 pages, the ITAT accepted the ground raised by the assessee. While admitting the ground raised the ITAT drew reference to the tribunal's Special Bench's decision All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd Vs DCI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NDS ON WHICH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS SOUGHT TO BE FILED: 6. On going through the order of the Hon'ble Tribunal, it is found that certain factual aspects remained to be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal, in the case in this context, it is prayed that following points emanated from the relevant records kindly be taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Tribunal:- (i) The Hon'ble B Bench of the tribunal has accepted the additional ground(s) raised by the assessee, inner-alia, alia pleading therein that the impugned assessment itself is not valid once the Assessing Officer has not converted it from a "Limited" to "complete" one. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the assessee has never contested this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Also, the addition was made on the same issue as mentioned in the CASS reason within the purview of limited scrutiny. Hence, the fact presented before the Hon'ble B Bench of the tribunal has been found misleading as it is amply clear that the addition was made on the issue mentioned in the CASS reason and there is no deviation from the CBDT instruction by the AO in framing the assessment. 7. In view of the above, it is prayed that the order dated 24.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble ITAT "B" Bench, Pune in ITA No 1615& 1329/PUN/2018, may kindly be recalled and the appeal of the assessee may be decided taking into consideration the facts as mentioned in Para 6 above. Hence, a miscellaneous application to the Hon'ble Tribunal is he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore prayed that Tribunal's order dated 24.08.2022 in ITA Nos.1615 and 1329/PUN/2018 be recalled and the appeal(s) of the assessee may be decided taking into consideration the facts of the case enumerated above. 7. In exercise of powers under section 254(2) of the Act, the Tribunal may amend any order passed by it only to rectify any mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal cannot revisit its earlier order and go into details on merit, which is beyond the scope and ambit of the power conferred under section 254(2) of the Act. 8. On perusal of the contents of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the Revenue as well as the findings of the Tribunal in its order dated 24.08.2022 in ITA Nos.1615 and 1329/PUN/2018, we find it difficult ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t on record, although it may be an error of judgment. The mere fact that the tribunal had not allowed a deduction, even if the conclusion is wrong, will be no ground for moving an application under section 254(2) of the Act. Further, in the garb of an application for rectification, the assessee cannot be permitted to reopen and re-argue the whole matter, which is beyond the scope of the section." 11. In its recent judgment in CIT (IT-4) Mumbai v. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (2021) 284 taxman 517 (SC)/440 ITR 1 (SC), their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that while considering application under section 254(2) Tribunal is not required to revisit its original order and go in details on merits and completely recall its order as powers un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
