Tribunal dismisses revenue's claim citing discrepancies in TDS certificates as not undisclosed income.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's claim for considering discrepancies in TDS certificates and unrecorded receipts as undisclosed income. The new issue raised by the present AO, regarding the mismatch between TDS certificates and book figures, was deemed unrelated to previous assessments and relief granted. The Tribunal concluded that this issue did not constitute a mistake apparent on record under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and therefore dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue.

---

---

Issues:
1. Discrepancy between TDS certificates and receipts not recorded in books of account.
2. Consideration of undisclosed income based on rectification petition.
3. Jurisdiction transfer and examination of TDS certificates by present AO.
4. Alleged mistake apparent from record for rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Discrepancy between TDS certificates and receipts not recorded in books of account:
The appellant sought rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing a mistake apparent in the Tribunal's order. The revenue pointed out a difference of Rs. 56,91,041 between TDS certificates and receipts not recorded in the books of account for the assessee. The revenue contended that this difference, along with another amount of Rs. 12,45,974, should be considered as undisclosed income. The Tribunal noted that the revenue's application did not arise from the assessment order and the previous Tribunal order. The AO had previously made an addition to the income, which was later relieved by the CIT(A) and ITAT, based on the income being credited in the profit and loss account. The present AO raised a new issue of mismatch between TDS certificates and book figures, which was not part of the original assessment, CIT(A), or Tribunal's consideration. The Tribunal concluded that the new issue raised by the present AO did not constitute a mistake apparent on record.

Issue 2: Consideration of undisclosed income based on rectification petition:
The revenue argued that the undisclosed income should include the discrepancy amount of Rs. 56,91,041 and an additional amount of Rs. 12,45,974, as per the rectification petition filed by the assessee. However, the Tribunal found that the new issue raised by the present AO was unrelated to the previous assessment and relief granted by the CIT(A) and ITAT. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's claim for considering the amounts as undisclosed income.

Issue 3: Jurisdiction transfer and examination of TDS certificates by present AO:
After the jurisdiction transfer to a new AO, discrepancies in TDS certificates were examined, leading to the claim of a mismatch of Rs. 56,91,041 in the case of one party. The present AO also considered an additional sum of Rs. 12,45,974 as undisclosed income based on a rectification petition. The Tribunal noted that the new issue raised by the present AO was not part of the original assessment or previous consideration by the CIT(A) and ITAT, and therefore, could not be addressed through a miscellaneous application under section 254(2) of the Act.

Issue 4: Alleged mistake apparent from record for rectification under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal emphasized that for a mistake to be rectified under section 254(2) of the Act, it must be an error that is apparent, obvious, and glaring. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both the revenue and the assessee, noting that the issue raised by the revenue had already been addressed in the previous Tribunal order. The Tribunal concluded that there was no mistake apparent from the record that warranted rectification under section 254(2) of the Act, and therefore dismissed the Miscellaneous Application filed by the revenue.

---

---