9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 186X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is stated as under:- "4. After giving my thoughtful consideration, I am of the view that even if the assessee has filed his voluminous paper book running into 150 pages, his contention that the cash deposit during demonetization period in fact had come from his other family members who are regular return filers, could hardly be accepted in principle. The fact also remains that learned lower authorities have not given credit of the accumulated cash in his household as well. Faced with the situation, I deem it appropriate in larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 8 lakhs out of that in issue of Rs. 11.19 lakhs deserves to be upheld. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 3.90 lakhs in very terms. Necessary computation sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Therefore Closing balance as on 10.11.2016 Rs. 14,26,927. Date:11.11.2016 Opening balance Rs. 14,26,927. Add: Cash Sales 1. Rs. 1,98,644. 2. Rs. 1,98,220. 3. Rs. 1,95,040. Total Rs. 5,91,904 Rs. 05,91,904 Total Inwards Rs. 20,18,831. Less :HDFC Bank Deposits on 11-11-2016 Rs. 9,00,000. Closing Balance as on 11.11.2016 Rs. 11,18,831. Date : 12.11.2016 Opening Balance Rs. 11,18,831. Add.: Cash sales 1,98,220. Rs. 01,98,220. Closing Balance 12-11-2016 Rs. 13,17,051. Date: 13.11.2016: Opening Balance Rs. 13,17,051. Add: Cash Sales 1. Rs. 1,94,510. 2. Rs. 1,94,510. TOTAL Rs. 3,89,020. Rs. 3,89,020. Total of Cash Inward Rs. 17,06,071. Less: Cash Outward : 13.11.2016 1.HDFC current Deposits Rs. 16,88,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the said part of the Cash Balance was in the form of old Currency notes which got exchanged against the assessee's Current and valid currency notes. However, this does not tantamount to the excess Cash Balance in the possession of the assessee. 6. The Assessing Officer, and the C.I.T. Appeals have treated this exchanged currency notes as the excess Cash Balance in the possession of the assessee which is not factually correct. 7. It is noteworthy that my Appeal Ground no. 4 reads as under:- "The CIT(A), (NFAC) erred in not allowing the credit for the total Cash Balance as per Assessee's cash book, for the deposit in the Bank Account, which has resulted in the fact that the Cash Balance (regular) of Rs. 11,19,000/- is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Year 2017-18. The assessee by way of the present Miscellaneous Application contended that the observations and findings in the Tribunal's order (supra) is not based on the correct facts of the case and also the Tribunal did not consider the alternate claim of the assessee (Ground no. 4), which according to the assessee is mistake apparent on record. The assessee has therefore prayed in the present Miscellaneous Application that the facts and the legal position may be reviewed and the suitable order may be passed to delete the confirmed addition of Rs. 8,00,000/-. 6. 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 canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct cannot constitute an apparent mistake rectifiable under this section. Similarly, failure of the tribunal to consider an argument advanced by either party for arriving at a conclusion, is not an error apparent 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." 10. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
