High Court remits tax assessment, accepting additional evidence, Senior Counsel agrees, further assessment required.

The High Court allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration based on additional evidence submitted through a miscellaneous application. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue accepted the remittal, recognizing the necessity for further assessment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Block assessment under Section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(Appeals).
3. Partial allowance of appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
4. Application under Section 254(2) seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order.
5. Dismissal of the application by the Tribunal.
6. Remittal of the matter to the Assessing Officer.

Block Assessment under Section 158BC:
The petitioner, an individual, underwent a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to a notice under Section 158BC to file a return of undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer assessed the undisclosed income for the block period, resulting in a demand of tax. An appeal to the CIT(Appeals) challenging the additions made was dismissed. Subsequently, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, granting relief on specific amounts, while confirming the rest of the additions.

Dismissal of Appeal by CIT(Appeals):
The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the petitioner's appeal questioning the additions made during the block assessment year, including cash, fixed deposit receipts, and bank deposits. This dismissal prompted the petitioner to further appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

Partial Allowance of Appeal by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal:
The Tribunal partially allowed the petitioner's appeal, accepting explanations for certain cash amounts found during the search and restoring the issue of bank deposits to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. However, other additions were confirmed, leading to the partial allowance of the appeal.

Application under Section 254(2) Seeking Rectification:
The petitioner sought rectification of the Tribunal's order under Section 254(2) based on alleged mistakes apparent from the record, particularly concerning fixed deposit receipts. The petitioner provided a certificate from a bank to support the claim of no discrepancy in the fixed deposit receipts, which was not considered by the Tribunal.

Dismissal of the Application by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application for rectification, stating that the alleged mistakes were not apparent and amounted to a request for a review, which is not permitted under Section 254(2). The Tribunal emphasized that the evidence presented post-hearing could not be accepted as rectification grounds.

Remittal of the Matter to the Assessing Officer:
The High Court allowed the writ petition, remitting the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration based on the documents submitted through the miscellaneous application before the Tribunal. The Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue agreed to this remittal, acknowledging the need for further consideration based on the additional evidence presented.

---