2015 (2) TMI 1384 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Denies Applications for Turnover Clarification, Upholds Original Decision

Calcutta Urology Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. Versus Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-VII, Kolkata, AAyakar Bhawan Purva, Kolkata

The Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications seeking clarification on turnover additions for the years 2004-05 to 2008-09. The Tribunal had ... Rectification of Mistake - Estimated profit in respect of the turnover disclosed by the assessee in its Profit & Loss A/c. by applying the rate of 35% - addition representing the undisclosed turnover found in the course of search - income from other sources - HELD THAT:- The words used in the order are clearly profit for the assessment year. Having specifically adjudicated the issue of the profit for the assessment year, now the claim of the assessee for further clarifications is nothing but review of the order. Obviously when profit for the assessment year is mentioned, the profit has to be decided for the turnover in it is entirety. In these circumstances, as it is noticed that the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are only in regard to seeking of clarification as is evident of the Miscellaneous Applications and as no error has been pointed out in the order of the Tribunal, the Miscellaneous Applications as filed by the assessee stand dismissed. Issues:Miscellaneous Applications seeking clarification on additions made in the assessment order for the years 2004-05 to 2008-09.Analysis:The Miscellaneous Applications were filed by the assessee against the Tribunal's order regarding additions made by the Assessing Officer. The first addition was based on estimated profit from disclosed turnover, the second on undisclosed turnover found during search, and the third on income from other sources. The Tribunal's order mentioned reworking the profit at staggered rates for each assessment year but did not address the addition related to undisclosed turnover. The assessee sought clarification on whether the addition for undisclosed turnover was deleted. The Revenue argued that the undisclosed turnover was admitted as income by the assessee and no specific challenge was made on this issue. The Tribunal noted that it had already decided on the profit for each assessment year and clarifying further would amount to a review of the order. Since no errors were identified in the Tribunal's order and the Miscellaneous Applications only sought clarification, they were dismissed.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee, stating that seeking further clarification on the turnover additions would essentially be a review of the order. The Tribunal had already determined the profit for each assessment year, and no errors were found in its decision. Therefore, the applications were rejected, and the original order stood.