Assessee's Application Dismissed for Alleged Mistakes; Re-Adjudication Not Permissible

The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application by the assessee, stating that the issues raised did not constitute mistakes apparent from the record. It emphasized that re-appreciation or re-adjudication is not permissible under the guise of rectification of mistakes. The order was pronounced on 22.10.2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Non-specification of the limb under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer.
3. Voluntary filing of revised computation of income.
4. Consideration of loose sheet as "money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing" for penalty purposes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee argued that the ITAT mistakenly applied Explanation 5A instead of Explanation 5 to section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal clarified that there was no mention of Explanation 5A in its order and that the assertion by the assessee’s counsel was not apparent from the record. The Tribunal emphasized that reconsideration of this argument would fall under a review, which is not permissible under section 254(2) of the Act. The Tribunal cited the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Ramesh Electric and Trading Co. and the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., stating that a mistake must be obvious and patent, not one requiring extensive reasoning.

2. Non-specification of the limb under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer:
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found this assertion incorrect, noting that there was no issue before the ITAT regarding the order passed under section 271(1)(c) being invalid due to non-specification of the limb. The Tribunal deemed this argument as an afterthought.

3. Voluntary filing of revised computation of income:
The assessee claimed that the non-disclosure of Rs. 18,05,000 was an unintentional error corrected by a voluntary revised computation before the assessment was completed. The Tribunal noted that this issue was considered and not accepted in the original order. It emphasized that non-acceptance of an assessee's submission does not constitute a mistake apparent from the record, thus not liable for rectification under section 254(2).

4. Consideration of loose sheet as "money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing":
The assessee argued that the loose sheet seized could not be considered as "money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing" under the relevant section, and hence, no penalty should be levied. The Tribunal found that this argument sought a review of the original order, which is not permissible under section 254(2).

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the issues raised by the assessee did not constitute mistakes apparent from the record. It reiterated that re-appreciation or re-adjudication is not permissible under the guise of rectification of mistakes. Consequently, the miscellaneous application by the assessee was dismissed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 22.10.2018.

---