https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759374 ITAT Bangalore rejected the second rectification application under section 254, finding it non-maintainable as it raised identical grounds to the first application already considered and rejected. The assessee's contention regarding ESI and EPF payment challans was dismissed due to insufficient documentary evidence on record, despite claims of submission during hearing. The tribunal cited Smt. Vasantben H. Sheth precedent, establishing that second applications on same grounds cannot be entertained once first application is rejected. AO was directed to pass consequential order in compliance with tribunal's directive. en-us Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Sep 2024 09:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759374 ITAT Bangalore rejected the second rectification application under section 254, finding it non-maintainable as it raised identical grounds to the first application already considered and rejected. The assessee's contention regarding ESI and EPF payment challans was dismissed due to insufficient documentary evidence on record, despite claims of submission during hearing. The tribunal cited Smt. Vasantben H. Sheth precedent, establishing that second applications on same grounds cannot be entertained once first application is rejected. AO was directed to pass consequential order in compliance with tribunal's directive. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 12 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759374