2000 (2) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pecific pages of paper book and specific reference from the arguments made through written brief to contend that mistakes were apparent, based on erroneous assumptions and due to ignoring specific material on record. Reliance was also placed on certain decisions to support the contentions that such mistakes are rectifiable, viz., CIT vs. Shakuntala Rajeshwar (1986) 58 CTR (Del) 34 : (1986) 160 ITR 840 (Del), CIT vs. Mitha Lal Ashok Kumar (1985) 49 CTR (MP) 372 : (1986) 158 ITR 755 (MP), S.B. Singar Singh & Sons vs. ITAT (1965) 58 ITR 626 (All) and Mangat Ram Kuthiala (Decd.) & Ors. vs. CIT (1960) 38 ITR 1 (P&H). 3. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, made the general arguments in respect of the provisions of s. 254(....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, nor it can be said that the Tribunal cannot rectify any mistake in its order. This depends upon the nature of particular mistake examined in light of relevant facts. If the mistake falls under the category of rectifiable mistakes, the Tribunal is empowered to rectify the same. Rather, the Tribunal is duty bound to do so when pointed out. On the other hand, however, substantially the mistake may be, the same is not rectifiable if it does not fall in the category of rectifiable mistakes. In this connection, we feel it reasonable to refer the decision of Mumbai Bench, (1998) 61 TTJ (Mumbai) 296 : (1998) 66 ITD 576 (Mumbai) and relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative at pp. 297 & 298 it states: "The Tribunal has, by virtue of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ery disclosed in wealth-tax return. From p. 5 of the order of CIT(A), we find that our assumption was wrong. Our assumption was based on the conception that usually the credit is being allowed by the authorities for jewellery disclosed under wealth-tax returns. We, therefore, direct that the credit for the jewellery disclosed in the wealth-tax return of the assessee is allowed to it. This rectifies decision in para 11 of our order. 6. The second mistake pointed out is that in para 13, the Tribunal observed that Panchnama does not include the jewellery on person of Shri Anand. We find that on paper book p 9, copy of Panchnama was available and item No. 22 evidently shows the caption that jewellery has been inventoried from the person of Shr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sidential premises of partners took place simultaneously and hence the surrender was also made simultaneously. This appears to be rather a correct fact. We, therefore, decline to rectify anything in relation to this point. Whether the surrender made by the firm was available to the partners or not is, however, a different issue being decided on other relevant material. We hold accordingly. 9. The next mistake has also been pointed out in para 18 of the order. It was observed that "No details of any surrender made in the case of firm placed on record." Based on this observation, the Tribunal denied any credit in the hands of partners in relation to said surrender. During the arguments, reference was made to the details of surrender in the h....