Tribunal rejects application to recall order due to section 40A(3) violation

The tribunal dismissed the Misc. Application seeking the recalling of the order in ITA No. 100/VIZ/2013 based on the disagreement of the Authorized Representative for the addition under section 40A(3). The tribunal upheld its decision due to the violation of section 40A(3) by the assessee and the failure to address this violation by the ld. CIT(A), resulting in the rejection of the application.

---

---

Issues:
Recalling of tribunal order in ITA No. 100/VIZ/2013 based on disagreement of Authorized Representative for addition under section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The applicant filed a Misc. Application seeking the recalling of the tribunal's order in ITA No. 100/VIZ/2013, contending that the order was based on incorrect facts not on record. The Authorized Representative did not agree to the addition made under section 40A(3) before the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) did not address this issue, and the tribunal did not consider it during the appeal. The main reason for the addition by the Assessing Officer was the agreement by the Authorized Representative, which was not adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A). The tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's order due to the violation of section 40A(3) by the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the Misc. Application.

The tribunal found no apparent error in its previous order as the Authorized Representative's agreement for the addition was a crucial factor. The tribunal cited the violation of section 40A(3) by the assessee, leading to the reversal of the ld. CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The tribunal's specific finding in ITA No. 100/VIZ/2013 highlighted the violation and the failure to consider this violation by the ld. CIT(A), resulting in the upholding of the Assessing Officer's order.

The Departmental Representative strongly opposed the recalling of the tribunal's order, emphasizing the importance of the Authorized Representative's agreement for the addition under section 40A(3). The tribunal considered the arguments from both sides, reviewed the available material and the previous order, and concluded that the Misc. Application lacked merit due to the crucial role of the Authorized Representative's agreement in the addition under section 40A(3).

In summary, the tribunal dismissed the Misc. Application seeking the recalling of the order in ITA No. 100/VIZ/2013 based on the disagreement of the Authorized Representative for the addition under section 40A(3). The tribunal's decision was upheld due to the violation of section 40A(3) by the assessee and the failure to address this violation by the ld. CIT(A), leading to the rejection of the application.

---