https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312152 Refusal to rectify was upheld because no mistake apparent from the record was shown in relation to the Tribunal's treatment of the ground as not pressed. The estimate-based addition in the pawning business was sustained since the record before the Assessing Officer supported the Tribunal's view and no cogent contrary material established that the ground had in fact been pressed. In the absence of such evidence, rectification was not warranted and the addition remained undisturbed against the assessee. en-us Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Feb 2024 13:26:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312152 Refusal to rectify was upheld because no mistake apparent from the record was shown in relation to the Tribunal's treatment of the ground as not pressed. The estimate-based addition in the pawning business was sustained since the record before the Assessing Officer supported the Tribunal's view and no cogent contrary material established that the ground had in fact been pressed. In the absence of such evidence, rectification was not warranted and the addition remained undisturbed against the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 29 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312152