Tribunal upholds order, dismisses challenges under Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal upheld its original order, dismissing both Miscellaneous Applications, as it found no apparent errors in its findings. It emphasized that the assessee's attempts to challenge the order based on alleged mistakes were impermissible under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 6th June 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Presumption under section 132(4) on the diary A/1.
2. Non-discussion about the amount deleted by CIT(A).
3. Written submission of DR not provided to the assessee.
4. Finding of ITAT contrary to the AO's findings.
5. Consideration of statement dated 20/10/2000 of Shri Arvind A. Shah.
6. ITAT's finding on lack of supporting evidence.
7. Onus relating to nine ledger accounts in the diary A/1.
8. Thaltej land as security against the loan.
9. CIT(A) not perusing the case records of Manoj Vadodaria.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Presumption under section 132(4) on the diary A/1:
The Tribunal noted that the diary A/1 found from Shri Arvind Shah's residence was written under the instructions of the assessee. The Tribunal gave preference to the statement recorded under section 132(4) at the time of search over the statement recorded under section 131 in 2002. The Tribunal concluded that there was no apparent error in its order as the statements and evidence were duly analyzed, leading to one of the possible opinions.

2. Non-discussion about the amount deleted by CIT(A):
The Tribunal considered the bifurcation of Rs. 27,32,38,000/- and the deletion of Rs. 23,43,08,700/- by CIT(A). The Tribunal impliedly addressed this issue in its overall finding, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal concluded that the non-discussion of this specific amount separately did not constitute an apparent error.

3. Written submission of DR not provided to the assessee:
The Tribunal acknowledged the affidavit filed by the assessee claiming that the written submission of the DR was not provided. However, it concluded that the written submission did not introduce new facts and was consistent with the assessment order. Therefore, this did not vitiate the proceedings or constitute an apparent error.

4. Finding of ITAT contrary to the AO's findings:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether the diary contained purely sharafi transactions or other types as well. The Tribunal concluded that such minor discrepancies in observations did not impact the decision-making process and did not constitute an apparent error.

5. Consideration of statement dated 20/10/2000 of Shri Arvind A. Shah:
The Tribunal considered the statement recorded under section 132(4) and the subsequent statement under section 131. The Tribunal concluded that the initial statement given at the time of search was more reliable. The Tribunal found no apparent error in its preference for the earlier statement.

6. ITAT's finding on lack of supporting evidence:
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered various loose papers and remand reports. However, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to provide corroborative documentary evidence to substantiate its claims. The Tribunal found no apparent error in its conclusion.

7. Onus relating to nine ledger accounts in the diary A/1:
The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to produce parties related to the nine ledger accounts. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) had overlooked the fact that the addition deleted by CIT(A) did not form part of the nine names. The Tribunal found no apparent error in its conclusion.

8. Thaltej land as security against the loan:
The Tribunal concluded that the Thaltej land was connected to the sharafi business and was used to secure loans. The Tribunal found no apparent error in its conclusion that the CIT(A) had not considered this aspect.

9. CIT(A) not perusing the case records of Manoj Vadodaria:
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) could not have considered the assessment records of Manoj Vadodaria as the assessment was completed after the CIT(A) passed the order. The Tribunal concluded that this observation did not constitute an apparent error.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed both Miscellaneous Applications, concluding that there were no apparent errors in its original order. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee's attempts to review the order under the guise of pointing out apparent mistakes were not permissible under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's order was pronounced on 6th June 2018.

---